Writing and publishing research articles in teams

This paper provides insight into writing scholarly research articles by working collaboratively in teams. Collaborative writing is increasingly common practice within organizational and university contexts. While there is a growing volume of literature which examines various aspects of collaborative writing from challenges to politics, less attention is paid to practical aspects of how to write in teams, particularly within the context of research training. The article examines practical approaches to collaborative writing, and delineates primary continuities and disjunctions between ‘traditional collaboration’ relying largely upon physical face-to-face meetings, and ‘virtual teams’ which are geographically or organizationally dispersed and communicate via virtual, mobile, online or telephony enabled communication.

Pedagogy of feedback on student academic writing : research supervisor practices for the end of the research degree candidature

All academic writing is advanced with the benefit of feedback about the writing. In the case of the academic writing genres of the research proposal and the dissertation, feedback is usually provided by the research supervisor. Given that academic writing development is a process, and in the case of the research proposal and dissertation, writing which develops over time, it seems likely that the nature of feedback on drafts written early in the candidature may be different from feedback provided by the research supervisor later in a student’s candidature. ----- ----- When a research supervisor has been reading a student’s writing over a period of time, their own familiarity with the writing generates a risk to their ability to provide critical and objective feedback. Particularly by the end of a student’s candidature, the research supervisor’s familiarity with the work may cause them to miss elements of writing improvement. ----- ----- The author, as a research supervisor, has developed a feedback grid to facilitate feedback on the final drafts of a dissertation. This feedback grid is generated by the embedded promises in the early sections of the dissertation, which are then used to audit the content of the final sections of the dissertation to ascertain whether promises made have been fulfilled. This provides a strategy for the research supervisor to step back from the work and read the dissertation with the agenda of a dissertation examiner. ----- ----- The grid is one strategy within a broader pedagogy of providing feedback on writing samples.

e-Research Methods Theme 8 Writing Research Proposal ZIP

Source files for theme 8

Collaborative writing to enhance cross-cultural understanding within the academy

This paper describes the design and implementation of a research writing workshop for postgraduate students. The workshop was developed to respond to two key issues currently on the agenda in Australia’s universities: a push to embed Indigenous perspectives into the curriculum, and a desire to develop creative works as quality research outputs. The workshop was carefully designed to provide opportunities for participants to practise and improve their writing; develop transferable writing skills; develop a culturally safe environment where Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians could work together; provide a place to practise collaborative writing and collaborative facilitating; and provide an opportunity to develop a publication-ready, creative writing piece that was co-developed by participants. In this paper, the authors provide an overview of the literature relevant to Indigenizing a workshop curriculum and reflect on the genre of Indigenous writing in Australia. They also discuss the literature relevant to their collaboration as both writers and facilitators. They conclude that the workshop processes contributed to building a relationship of collaboration and trust between the facilitators and participants, and that these processes directly contributed to the successful workshop outcomes.

Keep an "eye" on the text: The Use of Self-mention in the Academic Writing of Experts

One of the most controversial inquiries in academic writing is whether it is admissible to use first person pronouns in a scientific paper or not. Many professors discourage their students from using them, rather favoring a more passive tone, and thus causing novices to avoid inserting themselves into their texts in an expert-like manner. Abundant research, however, has recently attested that negotiation of identity is plausible in academic prose, and there is no need for a paper to be void of an authorial identity. Because in the course of the English Studies Degree we have received opposing prompts in the use of I, the aim of this dissertation is to throw some light upon this vexed issue. To this end, I compiled a corpus of 16 Research Articles (RAs) that comprises two sub-corpora, one featuring Linguistics RAs and the other one Literature RAs, and each, in turn, consists of articles written by American and British authors. I then searched for real occurrences of I, me, my, mine, we, us, our and ours, and studied their frequency, rhetorical functions and distribution along each paper. The results obtained certainly show that academic writing is no longer the faceless prose that it used to be, for I is highly used in both disciplines and varieties of English. Concerning functions, the most typically used roles were the use of I to take credit for the writer’s research process, and also those involving plural forms. With respect to the spatial disposition, all sections welcomed first person pronouns, but the Method and the Results/Discussion sections seem to stimulate their appearance. On the basis of these findings, I suggest that an L2 writing pedagogy that is mindful not only of the language proficiency, but also of the students’ own identity may have a beneficial effect on the composition of their texts.

Research and diabetes nursing. Part 2 : process of critical review

This article is the second in a six-part series addressing research and the DSN. Crirical review is a key aspect of research and evidencebased care and, therefore, of clinical and professional practice. Critical review is an analytical and reflective process that involves judging the quality of research publicarions and their relevance to practice. This article oudines key aspects of how to review publications and conference presentations, how critical review applies to clinical care, and how this process om help develop writing and critical thinking skills. Also addressed are the general aspects of critical review, and a list of further reading and useful websites is provided. Specific considerations for particular research methods such as quantitative, qualitative, evaluation studies and audits will be addressed in later articles in the series.