Towards an enhanced view of doctoral writing environments: Learning alliances to reconceptualise practice

Abstract

As doctoral enrolments have soared in many countries around the world, considerable attention has been devoted to how an increasingly diverse candidature can succeed in thesis writing. Along with supervisory guidance during the student’s research project, various publications have emerged to help students with thesis writing requirements. However, neither necessarily helps students become expert writers as supervisors tend to focus on content discussions, and self-help books attend to the more surface or mechanical features of writing. Along the way to a finished thesis, students can become mired in uncertainty about what they are discovering – intellectually stuck – and then lose confidence in their ability to express themselves within an academically accepted writing style. Indecision hampers student progress as they struggle with appropriate ways to reveal the insights they are gaining during research. Yet, generic, group-oriented, doctoral writing programmes can provide a powerful means for students to appreciate key features of the doctoral writing genre and overcome intellectual hurdles. This paper explores how an understanding of threshold concepts and the use of cultural, social and linguistic tools can mediate students’ emerging knowledge of how to become proficient and successful thesis writers.

Keywords

Higher education doctoral writing learning environments threshold concepts

The article explores the development of a discussion-based, tertiary learning environment in which writing specialists help doctoral candidates understand features of text-based argument. Such aspects of writing are known implicitly to academic writers, but can (and should) be made explicit to thesis writers. The paper synthesises a range of ideas about supervision, thesis writing, and threshold concepts (TCs) in doctoral education. It presents an argument for university-based generic writing programmes in which language and physical and conceptual tools mediate students’ developing knowledge of thesis writing. The paper then discusses one cross-disciplinary discussion-based learning environment in New Zealand (the Doctoral Writing Conversation) and the specific ways in which students develop independence and personal agency as thesis writers.

Background and introduction

The ‘massification’ of doctoral enrolments has placed increasing pressure on educational institutions, funding agencies, and governments to re-examine how they view and manage quality in doctoral education (Halse and Mowbray, 2011; Mok and Jiang, 2016; Neubauer et al., 2018). Reasons for the increase could include a widening concept of ‘valued knowledge’ but more likely include globalisation and new market-driven forces, which have led to changes in government policy and university funding (Norgrove and Scott, 2017). In New Zealand, policy developments to increase the education levels of Māori and Pacific peoples (Norgrove and Scott, 2017) have contributed to an increase in student numbers, but the overall diversity of students in terms of ethnicity, age, language, full-time/part-time, and on-campus/distance is a much larger phenomenon (UNESCO, 2014). Changing demographics amongst university academic staff have also necessitated a re-examination of effective ways to facilitate student completions (success). In spite of the need for change, however, many academics still rely on time-intense, individually oriented supervisory practice, which is increasingly difficult to sustain. Further, government pressure for students to complete their doctoral study within specific time limits and the increasing diversity of the doctoral student population have encouraged institutions to initiate new approaches to supporting the writing processes that are embedded in doctoral education (Johnson, 2014b).

This paper synthesises a range of ideas about supervision, thesis writing, and threshold concepts (TCs) in doctoral education. It presents an argument for university-based generic writing programmes in which language, and physical and conceptual tools mediate students’ developing knowledge of thesis writing. The paper then describes a cross-disciplinary discussion-based learning environment (the Doctoral Writing Conversation) in New Zealand and provides two brief examples of how a writing programme has been structured to help students develop independence and personal agency as thesis writers. One activity, the ‘four-by-four’, provides an activity model in which students can identify their writing problems, articulate them to others, and plan how to address them. The other example discusses activities in which students can develop understanding of what is meant by ‘academic voice’ and how to develop their own. Both examples serve to extend current thinking beyond that which underpins much of the current literature about group-based peer editing groups. The paper thus provides insight into how the implicit knowledge of accomplished academic writers can be made explicit to students through discussion, reflection, and practice.

Extending supervisory practice

Halse and Bansel (2012), in their in-depth analysis of pedagogical practice at the doctoral level, analysed 450 publications on supervision. They noted that in spite of all the changes occurring within the doctoral environment ‘the default model of the doctorate remains an individualised relationship between student and academic supervisor involving the preparation and supervision of a thesis/dissertation’ (Halse and Bansel, 2012: 378). They argue convincingly for a ‘learning alliance’, which recognises the contributions not only of supervisors, but also of multiple agents across the university to enrich student learning environments and aid successful degree completion. Hopwood (2010) also strongly advocates for an extended learning context, which involves multiple others in the doctoral process.

Coupled with the changing role of supervisors and the advantages of an extended supervisory environment is a greater awareness of the complexities and intricacies of thesis writing. A completed thesis in many (but not all disciplines) is presented as a linear process: the candidate identified a problem, read background literature to see how others viewed it, collected and then analysed some data, explained the meaning, significance, and knowledge gap filled by the study, and then discussed implications for the future. What is missing from such a linear story is recognition that the project in no way approximated the actual lived experience of the candidate. Research is messy; it involves false starts, missteps, successes and mistakes, blocks to thinking and progress, and the seemingly endless cycling through and refining of text, data, and outcomes. How these aspects of thesis writing can be revealed to, and understood by, higher degree students are key issues. Importantly, doctoral students must be active partners along the way to developing understanding.

Hopwood (2010) critiques the positioning of doctoral students as passive participants in the university degree structure rather than as co-constructing or resisting structures. His research found that doctoral students’ learning and experience are significantly influenced by their relationships with a wide range of people within and beyond academic settings, and that doctoral students are agents who intentionally shape their own experience. As he describes, ‘language, concepts, material artefacts and relationships with others’ (106) mediate students’ developing sense of personal agency. All of these factors argue for an extended and richer view of learning environments in which the complexities of thesis writing and independent thinking are organised, nurtured, valued, and include a range of knowledgeable others.

Creating meaningful thesis writing environments

Carter (2011) in her in-depth discussion of generic writing programmes and their potential contribution to supervisory practice, argues that the doctorate is its own literary genre, with aspects that can be identified and taught – regardless of a student’s research discipline. Further, Carter, citing Berkenkotter and Huckin, states that ‘understanding of genre is derived from and embedded in our participation in the communicative activities of daily and professional life. As such, genre knowledge is a form of “situated cognition” that continues to develop as we participate in the activities of the ambient culture’ (2011: 731). This understanding of genre’s function and how it can develop supports the role of a learning alliance, in which a range of people and communicative activities can be designed to mentor doctoral students into academic life.

Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) in their seminal discussion of situated cognition extend the notion of communicative activities as a learning tools. Citing Geertz, they argue that communities of practitioners are connected by more than their tasks: ‘They are bound by intricate, socially constructed webs of belief, which are essential to understanding what they do’ (33). Achieving understanding within an educational setting thus involves immersing students in carefully designed learning environments in which authentic tasks – those that a ‘real’ practitioner would do – are used. Lave and Wenger (1991) in their discussion of situated learning as legitimate peripheral practice describe how novices become members of their intended social, cultural, or work communities through the completion of increasingly meaningful and complex functions of the group. Yet, as we have seen, the tasks of mastering the nuances and singularities of thesis writing are usually restricted to supervisors. Paré (2011) in his insightful discussion of thesis writing requirements expresses surprise that given the importance of this task, there has been so little assistance available to help supervisors help their students become skilled writers. Some recent additions to the literature have begun to address this issue (Bitchener, 2018; Carter and Laurs, 2018).

However, I would argue that recognising the key roles of a better understanding of doctoral writing as literary genre and the importance of carefully designed authentic learning tasks is critical but insufficient. Beyond these considerations there are other key factors that can affect successful thesis writing. Various studies (Ali and Kohun, 2007; Kiley and Wisker, 2009) have described the emotional, cultural, cognitive, or even physical barriers to understanding that can have a negative impact on student progress. I would argue that this is particularly the case with the doctorate, characterised as it is by a non-linear process of research activities, drafting text, negotiation of meaning with others, and then the seemingly endless process of rewriting. Along the way to thesis writing mastery and degree completion, students can become ‘stuck’.

Insights from threshold concepts (TCs) to doctoral writing

Meyer and Land (2003), in their early exploration of the development of disciplinary knowledge focused on how students achieve conceptual understanding and the intellectual hurdles they encounter along the way. They described how mastery of threshold concepts (TCs) was essential to a student’s learning and considered five key TC characteristics. Once learned, TCs were ‘transformative’ (the student’s understanding of the discipline changed), ‘irreversible’ (they could not easily be ‘unlearned’), ‘integrative’ (the interrelated nature of disciplinary concepts was appreciated), ‘bounded’ (the concept had clear limits), and ‘troublesome’ (the concept might appear counter-intuitive). Also important though was that during the learning process, students could spend time in ‘liminal’ space before crossing a conceptual threshold to understanding. Harlow et al. (2011), citing Meyer and Flanagan, define liminal space as a conceptual state of flux – a place of intellectual disturbance and uncertainty. In short, TCs can manifest as the places where students get ‘stuck’ (Davies, 2006; Meyer and Land, 2005) and are unable to make substantive progress in their academic work.

Threshold concepts in the doctorate

Since 2003 ideas around TCs have been used to inform research in over 170 disciplinary and professional contexts (Land et al., 2014), including doctoral education (Kiley and Wisker, 2009). Nevertheless, discussion of TCs within the doctorate has primarily focused on supervisory practice (Keefer, 2015; Wisker et al., 2003), conceptual knowledge development (Barradell, 2013; Wisker, 2015), or helping students build understanding of research methodologies (Irvine and Carmichael, 2009; Lucas and Mladenovic, 2007). Only recently has more nuanced discussion of TCs as related to literary practice emerged (Bitzer, 2014; Wisker, 2016). Wisker characterises the underlying factors that can negatively affect writing progress as a ‘struggle with articulation’ (2016: 165). Such factors can include challenges in supervisory relationships – a sense of loss of intellectual ownership of emerging ideas with a resultant sense of powerlessness (loss of agency) when interacting with a supervisor.

Bitzer’s (2014) insights to writing thresholds are interesting; he postulates that it is ‘the way of thinking, not the mere acts of reading or writing that is most important in the development of literacy – particularly in the sphere of doctoral literacy’ (41). Such comments echo findings from Johnson’s (2013) research into doctoral writing ‘stuck’ places. She identified two TCs that are specific to thesis writing:

TC 1: Talking to Think: Academic writing includes more than just the mechanical presentation of words on a page: it also includes reflection and understanding. Until one has clarified one’s thinking (and has something to say), meaningful writing is difficult and can contribute to feeling lost.

TC2: Developing self-efficacy: Writing incorporates the ability to understand research practices, extract meaning from data, clearly articulate ideas (talk), and then present, shape, and reshape text on the page (write). Writing also includes a belief that understanding will emerge as new ideas emerge and are discussed, clarified, written, and refined. (Johnson, 2013: 239)

Both TCs capture a sense of writing that extends beyond the mechanical – beyond a linear process – to include thinking, dialogue, writing (and rewriting), and personal agency. TC2 in particular also captures the sense that tolerance of ambiguity while searching for meaning during research is required, but that understanding will emerge as ideas are discussed, clarified, written, and refined. Transformation towards becoming a doctoral student and then an independent scholar involves shifting identities, not only in study, but also in a student’s life (Tobbell, O’Donnell and Zammit, 2010). It could be argued then that being stuck has an essential role to play in this transformation, but so too do interaction (discussion), authentic tasks, and extended learning environments beyond supervisory meetings. To return to Halse and Bansell’s (2012) and Carter’s (2011) ideas, new ways of conceptualising thesis writing programmes across interdisciplinary student groups can be imagined and developed. One such approach, peer writing groups, has been discussed extensively.

Peer writing groups

Aitchison and Lee (2006) describe three pedagogical principles for writing groups, which are mentioned often in the literature and are common factors contributing to a group’s success. First, it is important that participants can identify with the group, which would be exemplified through the common purpose of writing a thesis (Holmes et al., 2010; Maher et al., 2013). This common goal makes engaging with the writing group relevant to participants (Fergusson, 2009).

Second, the giving and receiving of peer feedback and the critiquing of the work of peers in a supportive and non-threatening environment can be a valuable and valued tool for learning (Aitchinson, 2009; Fergusson, 2009; Parker, 2009). Such activities provide opportunities to explore and develop writing identity (Larcombe et al., 2007), to assist participants in being and becoming peers (Maher et al., 2008), but also, importantly, can contribute to students’ emerging sense of academic identity.

Third, significant attention must be given to the creation of community within the cohort and among cohort members (Holmes et al., 2010). Being part of a community creates a sense of comradeship, trust, and belonging (Guerin et al., 2013). Parker (2009) found that the community approach to learning was marked by a lack of hierarchy and the sharing of experiences to build confidence. Writing groups also reduce isolation and solitude and can improve the formation of networks and empathy.

In addition, there is evidence that collaborative writing programmes can have considerable benefit for participants, not only during the doctoral thesis writing process itself, but also throughout their future careers (Aitchison, 2014; Maher et al., 2008). Such programmes can provide active, supportive, and student-led environments in which writing is shared, strategies and skills to enhance the doctoral writing process are developed, and interpersonal networking skills are enhanced. Nevertheless, as Johnson (2013) has observed in her own generic thesis writing programme, not all students seek or enjoy peer writing groups. This is particularly the case with students who are early in their doctoral candidature, when they might lack a clear understanding of the range of doctoral processes they are encountering, and they have yet to produce much thesis text to share with others. This is not to deny the key contribution that peer writing groups can make to thesis writing development, but it is to assert that their function can be limited. Their role is typically not to address, discuss, and help students overcome the types of threshold concepts in doctoral thesis writing discussed earlier.

Beyond peer writing to learning alliances

At the University of Waikato, New Zealand, we have initiated and refined a generic writing programme, the Doctoral Writing Conversation (DWC) for thesis students (Johnson, 2013; Johnson, 2014a, 2014b). Participants are predominantly at the doctoral level, but there are also some research Masters students who attend. A key feature of the DWC is that it is multidisciplinary; students from all faculties across campus can attend the weekly sessions, which run for two hours every Friday morning throughout the academic year. Participants are at any stage of their doctorate, from recently enrolled to close to submission, and they engage in a variety of reading and textual critiquing activities, which are centred in group-based, guided conversations. There are also some peer writing and critiquing sessions. Attendance is steady, with between 15 and 30 students at each session (depending on the topic). In addition, we run four, two-day, off-campus writing retreats, in which writing space (both physical and conceptual) is provided along with WiFi access, refreshments and food, and opportunities for ‘break-out’ sessions with a learning developer for one-to-one discussion of specific writing issues.

The format, activities, and overall focus of the programme have evolved considerably since it was first introduced in 2009. Moving from a ‘hit and miss’ approach to providing the types of sessions that students wanted (or did not want) to more hands-on activities that focused on specific writing requirements of different chapters and thesis types (monograph or thesis by publication) was based on student feedback, student attendance, and institutional acceptance and promotion. A more detailed discussion of how the DWC approach was developed appears in Johnson (2018).

Using a variety of visual aids, such as print-outs of completed thesis tables of contents, examples of ‘real’ supervisor feedback, published academic articles, or examples of students’ own work, participants critically review and discuss how epistemological arguments can be developed and sustained in thesis writing. Students’ prior knowledge and understanding of praxis is the starting point at each session. As this generic writing conversation programme is cross-disciplinary, it addresses and considers the role of texts from any subject, for as Carter (2011) states, it is often at disciplinary borders that meaning can be found. The DWC dialogic format is a key strength and the collegiality of discussions creates a physical network of social support for learning, beyond the student–supervisor dyad, on which students can draw when needed.

Although discipline-specific writing conventions do differ, there are nevertheless underlying aspects of a doctoral literary genre that are known and can be presented and discussed; the genre rubric for the doctorate is prescribed. The goal of the thesis, unlike many other forms of writing, is ‘multiple, including creating and occupying a gap in existing knowledge, making an original contribution that is accepted by its community, demonstrating an internationally recognisable standard of presentation and transforming its author from novice to licensed practitioner’ (Carter, 2011: 730).

Having writing experts, rather than supervisors, design and offer a generic writing programme is essential. Paré (2011) in his discussion of thesis writing cites Rosenbaum and remarks that ‘as we become more and more expert at performing certain actions, we may have less and less ability to articulate the knowledge that allows us to act. In some cases, that knowledge may never have been explicit in the first place’ (62). Supervisors, themselves accomplished writers, might have only vague explicit knowledge of the rhetorical demands of building an argument. However, through language (discussion), tools (artefacts), and shared physical and conceptual space (a situated learning environment), students can develop understanding of doctoral writing together, and as part of a wider learning alliance. I would argue that by involving students in structured conversations about text with language and writing experts, implicit aspects of thesis writing conventions can be made explicit for students, by students. Such knowledge can not only contribute positively to their appreciation of writing fluency, but also contribute to understanding that ‘stuck places’ in research are normal. Entering and traversing liminal space needs to be presented to, and perceived by, students as a positive and a necessary pre-condition for learning; its role in developing conceptual independence should be emphasised.

Further, Wisker (2016) in her discussion of the difficulty that students experience when they cannot make writing progress states that the reasons are complex and frequently extend beyond language itself. They could be due to a lack of agency that has emerged from problems in the supervisory relationship or could be related to confusion in the interpretation of research findings. What is clear is that being stuck in liminal space can be precipitated by varied and intertwined reasons. Helping students to understand liminal space and cross writing thresholds is not necessarily straightforward and requires them to articulate (‘unpack’) which aspects of the doctoral process are contributing to their lack of writing progress.

What follows are two brief examples of DWC activities, which are designed to use artefacts (tools), language, and physical space to help students articulate, plan, and enact a way forward. Consistent with all of the DWC sessions, the activities span two hours. As there is no requirement for students to register in advance, from week to week we never know how many people will attend. While this could be perceived as a barrier to planning, it actually is not because of the nature of the programme, which is flexible, dialogic, and hands-on. If there exist any limitations, they would be linked to the flexibility of a physical space and to a facilitator’s tolerance of ambiguity in being able to handle variable numbers of participant groups. In our case, the room tables can be freely moved and regrouped to provide more or fewer working areas, depending on the number of attendees. Although an optimal group size would be 15–20 students, we have conducted entirely satisfactory sessions in which 35 students have participated; it just means that the working groups are larger. In addition, other than providing students with an overall structure for how a session will unfold (through PowerPoint slides), I assemble sufficient resources for up to 12 working groups, and materials are shared (and then returned to me at the end of the session). Students make their own notes during sessions as desired. Specific timings and supporting materials are outlined within each of the activities described below.

Making the (implicit) roadblocks explicit with the 4x4 (four by four)

The activity that we use to stimulate conversation is called the 4x4 (four-by-four) and is a ‘talking to think; thinking to write’ exercise. Consistent with Wisker’s (2016) finding, we have determined that when students encounter blocks in their writing, they often cannot determine the root cause. It could be related to academic processes (enrolment or locating materials in the library), supervisory issues, a lack of methodological understanding – or it could actually be concerned with how to structure a written argument. Whatever the reason, though, the roadblock manifests as an inability to accomplish much writing.

The 4x4 is a timed exercise, moving from the individual, to small group discussion, to a conversation with the entire group, and finally back to the individual. At the outset the facilitator explains how the session will be managed and states that the goal is for everyone to have a plan of action by the end of the session. First, students work independently to identify any thesis-related issues with which they are struggling and write them on a list. They are given about 10 minutes to do this. Then individuals join with two or three others to form working groups (and we instruct them to select people outside of their discipline). Students are given about 30 minutes to share the items on their lists, discuss them with their peers, and identify possible courses of action to resolve them. For the next 30 minutes the facilitator asks the small groups in turn to share both the problems they have discussed and their suggested solutions with the entire group. Common themes emerge across the groups, and members of the whole group contribute their ideas and suggestions for addressing them. Finally (and this is the stated goal of the 4x4), students work collaboratively with each other and the facilitator to develop an individual action plan.

Talking through obstacles to writing allows students to raise their awareness of doctoral processes and helps them extend their thinking. Equally important the 4x4 activity helps students recognise which issues are specifically writing-related and which are more extensive, possibly needing the involvement of others to address. Conversation with peers also reinforces that it is entirely normal during the thesis to encounter times of slow (or no) progress. Sometimes perseverance is required; sometimes knowledgeable others need to join the conversation and provide ideas; or even sometimes a short vacation from writing is needed to help students mentally relax and return to writing in a refreshed state of mind. Although ‘talking to think’ is an essential component of the 4 × 4, it is the ‘thinking to write’ planning part of this exercise that we emphasise; talking is relatively easy, but then developing a plan of action and using it overcome writing roadblocks are necessary next steps. Through the 4 × 4 activity, liminal spaces of conceptual flux or, ‘stuckness’ have been deconstructed, examined, and normalised as part of shared dialogue. Of course, this activity in itself does not necessarily lead to the crossing of intellectual thresholds, but students always report that the session is extremely helpful, contributing as it does to the clarification of possible ‘stuck’ reasons.

Academic voice – what is it and how can it be developed?

A second brief example of how language, tools, and shared activities can help students in the DWC develop conceptual understanding of rhetorical practice is described next and relates specifically to helping students build understanding of how academic text is organised and shaped into research arguments.

Academic voice can be defined as the ways in which textual arguments are developed and articulated, and as it relates to thesis writing, it includes an understanding of how specific rhetorical and linguistic features shape textual argument. In this session we begin with an exploration of what students already know about academic voice and its role in text. Interestingly, in all of the sessions I have run, students’ understanding is extremely limited. For the most part, they believe that academic voice is their overall contribution to the research environment, which would be better described as the overall thesis goal. However, students’ research contributions rely on the development of argument – based on evidence. Academic voice can be expressed strongly, with subtlety, or be almost muted, but one’s language choice and structure are what shape the reader’s understanding of the thesis. Thus I define academic voice for the students as the ability to communicate complex theoretical and research arguments in a clear, well-organised, and academically robust manner – as recognised in the student’s discipline.

The session considers thesis structure at the macro, meso, and micro levels and involves activities and group discussion of language use to guide the flow of a writer’s argument. Discussion begins with the ‘big picture’ (the macro structure), but shifts to increasingly focused examples of language use. The main artefacts at the macro level are the tables of contents of completed theses, across a variety of disciplines. They provide excellent visual tools for revealing overall thesis content and structure, yet they are not examples that students would typically examine and discuss. What is also useful about considering completed thesis structures is the visual evidence that thesis structure must be uniformly aligned across chapters.

The meso level is defined as the large and medium-sized components of chapters – the sections and paragraphs across which argument is presented and sustained. One key idea is the importance of planned redundancy in text (the intended repetition of key concepts); I refer to this as ‘help the reader’. We contrast this with unintended repetition, in which the same ideas (or even actual sentences) can appear multiple times throughout a section or chapter. Such language use can lead to boring texts with which a reader is increasingly reluctant to engage. For this activity we examine published academic articles, from a variety of disciplines and a range of journal types. Research articles share many of the same structural features of a thesis and thus provide ‘miniaturised’ examples of how argument can be developed. Their short, focused presentation makes them valuable physical tools to mediate understanding of authentic language in use as students identify rhetorical signals used to introduce new concepts or sustain arguments. Students identify repetition or gaps in reasoning, and explicitly consider, note, and discuss how an author has used textual features to maintain the reader’s interest.

At the micro level the group discussions focus on the finer aspects of language use such as voice (active or passive), tense, grammatical person, or punctuation. The session concludes with the recommendation and discussion that although students will be reading for content knowledge within their field, they also need to read mindfully and critically at the language level to gain understanding of which rhetorical devices accomplished academic writers use to structure and shape textual argument.

These brief descriptions exemplify the roles that language, and physical and conceptual tools can play in making explicit to students the rhetorical and linguistic features that accomplished writers implicitly know, understand, and can use. Situating the activities within a shared learning environment in which conversation is located around authentic academic texts helps students at all stages of their doctorate share insights of how language functions as a conceptual tool. In addition, students report that the DWC is their space in which they can converse and build social networks of support, advice, and encouragement.

Towards an improved understanding of doctoral writing

This paper has considered the changing role of doctoral practice within our markedly different higher education context. As increased numbers of students engage in doctoral research, the time-honoured practice of having just one or two senior disciplinary experts mentor fledgling academics through the doctorate to completion is more and more difficult to sustain. Nevertheless, a requirement for successfully finishing the doctorate is a complete and coherent written thesis. Unfortunately achieving that goal presents to many students as a ‘black box’ mystery.

Much has been written about the nature of the doctoral thesis and a case was made that it is a knowable literary genre. I would argue that higher degree institutions have a responsibility to make explicit to students the key aspects of doctoral writing; such features can be described, and they can certainly be taught. Learning alliances in which multiple knowledgeable others, beyond the supervisory team, play key roles in students’ degree study should be formed and supported. Language and writing expects in particular, as key contributors to doctoral learning alliances, can help students while also supporting supervisory practice. Although this paper has not included reference to the role of supervisors, their importance in shaping the DWC has been described elsewhere (Johnson, 2014a; Johnson, 2018). In addition, a new course for doctoral supervisors has been developed as a part of our Postgraduate Certificate in Tertiary Teaching and Learning, and one component of the course will be the sharing and discussion of key insights from the DWC.

An understanding of doctoral writing threshold concepts contributes to better design and shaping of learning activities to make explicit scholarly writing conventions and greatly extends our knowledge and understanding of the potential of group-based writing environments. As students work together, deconstruct academic text passages, and discuss their insights, they can gain confidence and move towards increased intellectual and writing self-sufficiency. TCs are not crossed overnight, but increased awareness that liminal space is a normal and expected facet of conducting original research can be comforting and reassuring to students and can contribute to persistence in writing tasks. I would encourage continued exploration and development of nuanced and contextualised doctoral writing programmes that can contribute to increased awareness of doctoral pedagogy within the new internationalised higher degree context.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledges the ongoing collegial support of Andrea Haines. The author also acknowledges the collegial support from the Wilf Malcolm Institute of Educational Research, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

E Marcia Johnson has been the Director of the Centre for Tertiary Teaching & Learning (CeTTL) since 2012. Coming from a background in eLearning and Applied Linguistics, she has taught and researched in Canada, Japan and New Zealand. Marcia and her team have introduced a number of cross-disciplinary, cohort-based initiatives to improve the student experience of learning, particularly doctoral writing and academic integrity. In particular their weekly Doctoral Writing Conversation has facilitated the development of a range of strategies to help PhD students become successful thesis writers.

References

Aitchison

(2009) Writing groups for doctoral education. Studies in Higher Education 34(8): 905–916.

Aitchison

(2014) Learning from multiple voices: Feedback and authority in doctoral writing groups. In: Aitchison

Guerin

(eds) Writing Groups for Doctoral Education and Beyond: Innovations in Practice and Theory. London: Routledge, pp.51–64.

Aitchison

Lee

(2006) Research writing: Problems and pedagogies. Teaching in Higher Education 11(3): 265–278.

Ali

Kohun

(2007) Dealing with social isolation to minimize doctoral attrition – A four stage framework. International Journal of Doctoral Studies 2: 33–49.

Barradell

(2013) The identification of threshold concepts: A review of theoretical complexities and methodological challenges. Higher Education 65(2): 265–276.

Bitchener J (2018) The relationship between reading, thinking and writing the literature review component of a doctoral confirmation proposal. In: Carter

Laurs

(eds) Developing Research Writing: A Handbook for Supervisors and Advisors. Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge.

Bitzer

(2014) Learning the language of the doctorate: Doctorateness as a threshold concept in doctoral literacy. Per Linguam 30(3): 39–52.

Brown

Collins

Duguid

(1989) Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher 18(1): 32–42.

Carter

(2011) Doctorate as genre: Supporting thesis writing across campus. Higher Education Research & Development 30(6): 725–736.

10.

Carter S and Laurs D (eds) (2018) Developing Research Writing: A Handbook for Supervisors and Advisors. Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge.

11.

Davies

(2006) Threshold concepts: How can we recognise them? In: Land

Meyer

JHF

(eds) Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge. London: Routledge, pp.70–84.

12.

Fergusson

(2009) The ‘write’ skills and more: A thesis writing group for doctoral students. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 33(2): 285–297.

13.

Guerin

Xafis

Doda

et al . (2013) Diversity in collaborative research communities: A multicultural, multidisciplinary thesis writing group in public health. Studies in Continuing Education 35(1): 65–81.

14.

Halse

Bansel

(2012) The learning alliance: Ethics in doctoral supervision. Oxford Review of Education 38(4): 377–392.

15.

Halse

Mowbray

(2011) The impact of the doctorate. Studies in Higher Education 36(5): 513–525.

16.

Harlow

Scott

Peter

et al . (2011) ‘Getting stuck’ in analogue electronics: Threshold concepts as an explanatory model. European Journal of Engineering Education 36(5): 435–447.

17.

Holmes

Birds

Seay

et al . (2010) Cohort learning for graduate students at the dissertation stage. Journal of College Teaching & Learning 7(1): 5–11.

18.

Hopwood

(2010) A sociocultural view of doctoral students’ relationships and agency. Studies in Continuing Education 32(2): 103–117.

19.

Irvine

Carmichael

(2009) Threshold concepts: A point of focus for practitioner research. Active Learning in Higher Education 10(2): 103–119.

20.

Johnson

(2013) ‘Previously I thought writing was writing’: Reflections on doctoral writing spaces. In: Frielick

Buissink-Smith

Wyse

et al . (eds) Research and Development in Higher Education: The Place of Learning and Teaching. Auckland: HERDSA, pp.233–242.

21.

Johnson

(2014a) Doctorates in the dark: Threshold concepts and the improvement of doctoral supervision. Waikato Journal of Education 19(2): 69–82.

22.

Johnson

(2014b) Toward the building of a cross-disciplinary doctoral research and writing culture. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice 11(1): Article 4. Available at: http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol11/iss1/4 (accessed 15 December 2017).

23.

Johnson

(2018) The doctoral writing conversation: Establishing a generic doctoral writing programme. Open Review of Educational Research 5(1): 1–12. DOI: 10.1080/23265507.2017.1419439.

24.

Keefer

(2015) Experiencing doctoral liminality as a conceptual threshold and how supervisors can use it. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 52(1): 17–28.

25.

Kiley

Wisker

(2009) Threshold concepts in research education and evidence of threshold crossing. Higher Education Research & Development 28(4): 431–441.

26.

Land

Rattray

Vivian

(2014) Learning in the liminal space: A semiotic approach to threshold concepts. Higher Education 67(2): 199–217.

27.

Larcombe

McCosker

O’Loughlin

(2007) Supporting education PhD and DEd students to become confident academic writers: An evaluation of thesis writers’ circles. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice 4(1): 54–63.

28.

Lave

Wenger

(1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

29.

Lucas

Mladenovic

(2007) The potential of threshold concepts: An emerging framework of educational research and practice. London Review of Education 5(3): 237–248.

30.

Mahar

Seaton

McMullen

et al . (2008) Becoming and being writers: The experiences of doctoral students in writing groups. Studies in Continuing Education 30(3): 263–275.

31.

Maher

Fallucca

Mulhern-Halasz

(2013) Write on! Through to the PhD: Using writing groups to facilitate doctoral degree progress. Studies in Continuing Education 35(2): 193–208.

32.

Meyer

JHF

Land

(2003) Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. In Rust

(ed.) Improving Student Learning. Improving Student Learning Theory and Practice – 10 Years On. Oxford: OCSLD, pp.412–424.

33.

Meyer

JHF

Land

(2005) Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education 49(3): 373–388.

34.

Mok

Jiang

(2016) Massification of higher education: Challenges for admissions and graduate employment in China. Working paper no. 5, Economic and Social Research Council and Higher Education Funding Council for England, July.

35.

Neubauer

Mok

Jiang

(eds) (2018) The Sustainability of Higher Education in an Era of Post-Massification. Oxford and New York: Routledge.

36.

Norgrove

Scott

(2017) How does New Zealand’s education system compare?: OECD’s Education at a glance 2017. Ministry of Education: Evidence, Data and Knowledge: Wellington, New Zealand. Available at: www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/182535/Education-at-a-Glance-2017-New-Zealand-Summary-Report.pdf (accessed 28 November 2017).

37.

Paré

(2011) Speaking of writing: Supervisory feedback and the dissertation. In McAlpine

Amundsen

(eds) Doctoral Education: Research-based Strategies for Doctoral Students, Supervisors and Administrators. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, pp.59–74.

38.

Parker

(2009) A learning community approach to doctoral education in the social sciences. Teaching in Higher Education 14(1): 43–54.

39.

Tobbell

O’Donnell

Zammit

(2010) Exploring transition to postgraduate study: Shifting identities in interaction with communities, practice and participation. British Educational Research Journal 36(2): 261–278.

40.

UNESCO (2014) Higher Education in Asia: Expanding Out, Expanding Up. The Rise of Graduate Education and University Research. Montreal: UNESCO Institute for Statistics.

41.

Wisker

(2015) Developing doctoral authors: Engaging with theoretical perspectives through the literature review. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 52(1): 64–74.

42.

Wisker

(2016) Beyond blockages to ownership, agency and articulation: Liminal spaces and conceptual threshold crossing in doctoral learning. In Land

Meyer

JHF

Flanagan

(eds) Threshold Concepts in Practice. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers pp.165–176.

43.

Wisker

Robinson

Trafford

et al . (2003) From supervisory dialogues to successful PhDs: Strategies supporting and enabling the learning conversations of staff and students at postgraduate level. Teaching in Higher Education 8(3): 383–397.