Maintaining textuality: a case study of the problematic use of academic discourse conventions in the thesis text of an international graduate student

Supervising research students in the writing up of their theses may present special difficulties when these students do not come from an English speaking background (NESBs). Very often, the textual problems are attributed by both supervisors and students to “problems with English”. My purpose in presenting this representative case study is to show that 1) the major problems in the text examined are due to the student’s misapprehensions about and inadequate command of the institutionalized conventions of thesis writing; 2) these problems are crosscultural; 3) such phrases as “problems with English” are reductive in that they obscure full recognition and acknowledgment of the complexity of the writing culture students enter and its cultural constructedness; and 4) there is a need to decontextualize our language in communicating with NESBs about their texts if we are to help them master a very complex range of discourse conventions

This unfathomable thing called supervision: negotiating better working relationships with supervisors

Supervision has been a ‘hot’ topic on the postgraduate research agenda in recent years. This reflects the high importance of the supervisory relationship in completion of research theses and completion on tune, as well as the dissatisfaction sometimes voiced by students about their supervisory experiences. The varied and complex issues of postgraduate research supervision have now received considerable coverage in the literature (D. & K. Battersby, 1980; Powles, 1988 & 1994; Moses, 1984, 1988 &1990; Ballard & Clanchy, 1993; Parry & Hayden, 1994; Cullen et al, 1994; Acker et al ,1994). Special attention has been given to reviewing supervisors’ current practices and procedures, to improving practice, to initiating development workshops, training programs and so forth (Welsh, 1982; Christopherson et al, 1983; Connell, 1985; Ballard & Clanchy, 1991; Conrad, 1992; Moses, 1985 &1992; Nightingale, 1992; Powles, 1993; Russell, 1994; Whittle, 1994; Willcoxson, 1994). Expansive manuals detailing procedures for conducting residential workshop programs on postgraduate supervision, such as that edited by Zuber-Skerritt, have also appeared (1992). In short, there has been extensive scrutiny of the subject in the literature. The push behind the more ‘practical’ literature has been to increase the effectiveness of supervisors to supervise. Listening to conference participants detail the various initiatives they have introduced in their respective universities also reinforces my impression of focussed attention on the supervisor. It is important that this push to improve supervisory practice continues. It is also reasonable to ask what students themselves might be able to contribute to this two-way relationship. The question is though, whether students can take a more active role in determining what goes on in supervision, given the unequal power relations of which they are often acutely aware, particularly in the early stages of their degrees. Further questions are: if they can, why do so many seem not to? what might be the value for students generally in becoming more active on their own behalf? and what can be done to help them in this ? These questions have arisen from my advisory work with research students during the past five years. The questioning began, however, with submission of my own PhD and the realisation of how much time I had lost because of my own inefficiencies, often due to ignorance of a procedural kind. Since then, I have heard many completing PhDs express the same view. Only when it is all over do we become aware of how best to proceed, not only with the research and writing but also with a range of academic matters including handling supervision. There is not much comfort in knowing retrospectively. Some of this knowledge might be put to good use in future research projects, but most (there are a crazy few) will never again do a PhD

To integrate or not? Interests, practice and the dialogic development of graduate students discourse skills

The literature has provided a necessary corrective to any notion that generic skills can be taught in ignorance of disciplinary-specific practices, but this does not mean that integration is the best way to proceed in all situations. In graduate studies, the writing culture is far more complex than in undergraduate work. It is difficult to see that there is a disciplinary discourse when graduate students have to produce different discourses in their disciplines. Discourse practices are as variable as the writing culture is complex, any definition of which needs to be multilayered not single, inclusive rather than exclusive. At the same time, teaching practices and approaches to teaching discourses are governed by the ‘interests’ of language and learning staff, which are conditioned by various factors discussed in the paper. As these conditions constrain and open up possibilities for teaching, it is inevitable that teaching practices and approaches remain variable. One practice discussed in detail in this paper is the dialogic development of discourse skills. While the practice is not suited to all situations of teaching, it is particularly useful in helping research students gain control of text construction in a way that increases their understanding of the constructedness of all academic texts, as well as other texts

International graduate coursework students and the urgency of adapting to new learning strategies

International graduate students enrolled in coursework degrees are under enormous pressure from the moment they come on course. They usually have only 1-2 years to complete their courses. There is greater pressure on their language skills in the context of reading and writing. They often have gaps in their knowledge and the higher levels of theoretical, philosophical or methodological content in their readings can be particularly difficult for them. There are also other pressures. Time constraints do not permit the more leisurely acquisition of new learning strategies allowed research students. This paper discusses the particular difficulties encountered by coursework students and their urgent need of help. It also examines the different contexts in which they can be helped and proposes methods for assisting them in those contexts

Writing for academic sucess, 2nd ed./ Craswell

xi, 248 p.: tab.; 24 cm

Writing for academic sucess, 2nd ed./ Craswell

xi, 248 p.: tab.; 24 cm

Evaluating the Medical Malpractice System and Options for Reform

The U.S. medical malpractice liability system has two principal objectives: to compensate patients who are injured through the negligence of healthcare providers and to deter providers from practicing negligently. In practice, however, the system is slow and costly to administer. It both fails to compensate patients who have suffered from bad medical care and compensates those who haven't. According to opinion surveys of physicians, the system creates incentives to undertake cost-ineffective treatments based on fear of legal liability—to practice "defensive medicine." The failures of the liability system and the high cost of health care in the United States have led to an important debate over tort policy. How well does malpractice law achieve its intended goals? How large of a problem is defensive medicine and can reforms to malpractice law reduce its impact on healthcare spending? The flaws of the existing system have led a number of states to change their laws in a way that would reduce malpractice liability—to adopt "tort reforms." Evidence from several studies suggests that wisely chosen reforms have the potential to reduce healthcare spending significantly with no adverse impact on patient health outcomes.