Historically, a range of questionable assumptions about research writing in the higher degree research space can be identified. Although these assumptions are fading, it can be helpful to revisit them when thinking about research writing training. This page describes some of these historical misconceptions about research writing and considers alternate ways of thinking about writing support that have replaced them. 

'Myths' about research writing have included the following:

• Research literacy is a skill that students have or should have when they begin their research degree.
• Poor writing is a sign of an intellectual weakness.
• Only international students need assistance with writing. Problems with writing are mostly the result of English language deficiencies, or problems with grammar and vocabulary.
• Writing happens at the end of the research process, especially for empirical research, or in areas like the sciences. Very bright people do not need to make multiple drafts; they get their ideas clear in their heads first and then write them down toward the end of the research process. This is what is meant by ‘writing up’.
• Close engagement with writing is appropriate towards the end of candidature when near complete drafts are produced.
• Supervisors should not give their research students too much support (or 'spoon-feed' them). If the student cannot progress their research on their own, they may not be capable of thinking and working independently. A sink-or-swim approach is best because it weeds out the weak candidates.
• Research training should take place within supervision, within the research process, and as part of socialisation into the discipline, much of which occurs informally.
• The best way to teach students how to write is to tell them what you want and to highlight areas in their texts that are wrong and need to be corrected.

What we know now

• Many research students are not familiar with and have not had to reproduce research texts before, and will benefit from learning about research writing genres and language patterns.

• Both domestic and international research students benefit from explicit learning about research genres.
• Learning about genre and language patterns can be equally and often more helpful for international students than English language instruction alone.
• Thinking happens in the activity of writing. Regular writing regimes improve both time to completion and also research quality.
• Working in isolation is not necessarily a sign of independence, but may signal that a student is at risk.
• Research writing skills can be acquired more quickly if explicitly taught.
• Structured research training and specialist writing support can support the research process.
• Telling and critiquing is beneficial; showing, guiding discovery, praising, and enabling are also important.

Most research students will benefit from learning about research writing genres and language patterns

Research writing pertains to a unique set of textual genres that many research degree students will not have been asked to reproduce before, and whose rules are not always made explicit in prior degrees. It is normal for students, and indeed for academic researchers, regardless of their level of English language proficiency or their skill in writing in other professional contexts, to struggle with research writing. Research writing may not have been taught at the undergraduate or postgraduate coursework level.

In some disciplines, text books are the primary texts students read at undergraduate levels, and text books are written in a different style to research texts. Undergraduate students also read academic texts for purposes that are different from the ways researchers read for research purposes; often searching for information to answer pre-set questions, rather than to produce syntheses of previous knowledge for instance.

Research writing takes a variety of different forms (journal articles, theses, exegeses, abstracts, posters, 3MT presentations, research proposals, media interviews, seminars, conferences). Even when research students are well networked or socialised in the discipline, the unspoken conventions and expectations of research readers about what constitutes appropriate research texts can remain obscure, and learning how to write well for research purposes may be a slow process. Moreover, many students will have been in the workforce and may have not studied for a considerable period of time.

Consequently many students enter higher degrees without a good understanding of how to write and communicate effectively in international English language research genres. Typically, novice research writers pick up implicit conventions about research writing by trial and error, guess work, involving false starts, often causing considerable stress, and using precious research time. It is not surprising then that, when research students are asked what they want included in research training, they will frequently prioritise some aspect of research writing.

Once provided with basic guidance about purpose, structure and language choices, most students will rapidly become independent research writers and produce competent texts. A lack of understanding of the expectations underpinning the production of research texts, has little to do with native intelligence or ability to think critically or to be original, and is not a predictor of future academic or research success.

Both domestic and international research students benefit from learning about research writing.

In the research context, native English speakers and those for whom English is an additional language often struggle with similar questions and misunderstandings about research writing. In the research context, all students are learning the disciplinary and research languages they need to communicate their ideas. Students and academics continue to learn about research writing and to expand their discipline and research vocabulary throughout their careers.

Learning about genre and language patterns can be more helpful for international students than English language instruction alone.

Learning to compose successfully within a new cultural setting, in this case international research English, involves a complex process of identifying and producing a new textual pattern. This means that discussing the patterns and conventions underpinning text types, something native speakers also benefit from, can be a more effective way of improving research writing than of providing English language training.

Language and cultural background influences how we write. For instance, research into academic literacies suggests that some cultures emphasise writer-oriented rather than reader-oriented texts, place less emphasis upon the use of transitions to enhance reader understanding (Leki and Carson 1997), and use more general language in introductions than in the West (Canagarajah 2011, 109–132). There may be less emphasis on literature reviews, fewer references to the discipline, and fewer claims to originality than is typical of writing in the Western tradition (Canagarajah 2011, 109–132). There are also differences in how ‘ownership’ of ideas are understood, with some cultures emphasising communal ownership of intellectual property, and the accessibility of academic writing to general intellectual or community concerns (Canagarajah 2011, 109–132). This means that what is considered appropriate writing in one culture, may be unacceptable in another. Ironically, it can happen that international students will have to re-learn how to write about research in their home countries when they return home or write for different cultural audiences. This means that 'problems' in research writing can reflect different cultural practices, and that teaching students about expectations and writing patterns in the international English research context will support them to produce successful texts in multiple writing contexts, becoming even more sophisticated language users than they already are.   

Writing has a lot to do with understanding the context within which you are writing. All writers need to learn about the writing context in order to write effectively. Explicit discussion of the expectations underpinning writing will assist novice writers to work through confusion about what is appropriate in the Western English language international research context. It will also assist our research students to adapt to new research writing contexts in their future professional or academic careers.  

If we teach all our students about research writing in the English language  international research context, we can avoid disadvantaging those students who are most unfamiliar with that context, including, perhaps, international students, as well as students who do not have cultural capital in Western research traditions for other reasons. Teaching about research writing and research culture is therefore an important equity strategy.

Thinking happens in writing. A regular writing practice improves time to completion, research quality and the supervision process.

What sounds good in our own heads can lack sense once on the page. Writing is a practice that disciplines thinking. Writing enables us to clarify and logically structure our ideas. For this reason, all writers in all disciplines benefit from a regular writing practice. Seeing progress on the page is also a good way to sustain the motivation and confidence that is so important to successful research outcomes and satisfaction.  

Finally, a regular writing practice is one of the best ways to ensure the research is on track and to sustain a positive supervisory relationship. It is only when ideas are laid out on the page that misunderstandings and lack of clarity become apparent. Regular research writing and engagement with research writing within supervision is a critical means by which to progress research.

Working in isolation is not a sign of independence. It might signal that a student is at risk.

A research culture that isolates students and supervisors and conveys the message that needing support is a sign of inadequacy, can impact negatively upon student well-being, often with serious negative mental health implications, and is associated with dropping out and slow completion. An emphasis upon working alone, or the assumption that independence means not needing support can imply that interdependence and inter-relationality are weak or inferior in some way, even though both are central to research and career success.

Communicating your ideas, admitting you have something to learn, and learning how to receive feedback, require courage and improve research quality and research skills. An isolationist research culture inhibits sharing, challenging and the cross-fertilisation of ideas as well as networking within the research space. Those who do not engage are vulnerable and most at risk of falling behind.

Smart, effective researchers ask for help when they need it, have the humility to engage with the feedback they receive, and can work well alone as well as in collaboration with others. There is no evidence to support the view that effective research education leaves students to work primarily alone, or that doing so is a sign of independence.

Research writing can be explicitly taught.

Teaching novice writers how to master a new written genre is the pursuit of discipline areas like applied linguistics, sociolinguistics, new literacy studies and discourse studies, often referred to collectively as ‘academic literacies’. Research in these fields suggests that research writing, like other written forms, can be explicitly taught. Structured introductions to, and engagement with specific patterns within texts at the whole of document, section, or paragraph level, within different functional parts of a research text, and within different text types, builds a writer's skills and confidence. Writing instruction can also include exploration of the reader expectations that implicitly inform writing practices for specific text types. It is also useful to support the writing process, enabling writers to clarify their meanings, to build motivation and confidence to write, and to receive constructive feedback. Writing can be taught within supervision, within structured or taught research training, as well as within writing retreats and writing groups.

Telling and critiquing is helpful; showing, guiding discovery, praising, and enabling is powerful.

Educators understand the importance of starting learning from where students are at. Research students:

• are often unfamiliar with research writing genres,
• may be demoralised or become defensive when they receive critical feedback without accompanying positive feedback, particularly early on, or in ‘stuck’ stages,
• may feel they should provide a near perfect draft the first time,
• feel frustrated when they get no feedback, delayed feedback, or feedback they do not understand how to implement.

It can be helpful to engage candidates producing a specific research text type for the first time with input about the research purposes informing it, common structural patterns, and aspects of language use. Doing so in the early stages of the writing can prevent time being wasted, or worse, students getting stuck in a negative draft pattern early on.

Students who are unfamiliar with research writing can be introduced to the text patterns they are expected to produce, perhaps alongside a discussion about the expectations that underpin the structure and language used in research writing. They can then move toward producing more polished drafts and to considering supervisory feedback on text. This has the advantage of engaging students and supervisors in the writing process early and regularly, and in preventing students from wasting time producing texts that are very far off the mark in terms of their approximation to expected research genres. This can also mean that students can revise texts before becoming too attached to them as final stage drafts.  

References

Bastalich, W., M. Behrend & R. Bloomfield (2014) Is non-subject based research training a ‘waste of time’, good only for the development of professional skills? An academic literacies perspective, Teaching in Higher Education, 19:4, 373-384, DOI:10.1080/13562517.2013.860106

Canagarajah, A. S. 2011. A Geopolitics of Academic Writing. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Leki, I., and J. Carson. 1997. ‘Completely Different Worlds’: EAP and the Writing Experiences of ESL Students in University Courses. TESOL Quarterly 31 (1): 39–69. doi:10.2307/3587974.