Brian Paltridge & Sue Starfield Thesis and Dissertation Writing Second in a Language a handbook for supervisors. 

Scene 1

Brian Paltridge
& Sue Starfield
Thesis
and Dissertation
Writing
Second
in a
Language
a handbook for supervisors

Thesis and Dissertation Writing in a Second Language. 

Scene 2

Thesis and Dissertation Writing 
in a Second Language

The changing demographics of higher education in conjunction with imperatives of greater
accountability and increasing support for research students mean that many supervisors find
themselves challenged by the task of guiding non-native-speaker students to completion.
Thesis and Dissertation Writing in a Second Language is a practical guide containing useful
real-life examples. Tasks in each unit are designed for supervisors to use with their students to
help them develop the skills and understanding necessary for successful thesis and dissertation
writing.
Each unit of the book focuses on a particular aspect of thesis and dissertation writing and
the research and supervision process, including:

●
aspects of language use particular to thesis and dissertation writing;

●
typical chapter structures and organization;

●
social and cultural expectations particular to writing a thesis or dissertation;

●
what is expected of students in this kind of writing and at this level of study;

●
expectations of students and supervisors in the supervision and thesis writing process;

●
disciplinary differences in thesis writing;

●
what examiners expect of theses and dissertations written in English-medium universities;

●
insights into barriers faced by non-native-speaking students studying for a research degree.

Thesis and Dissertation Writing in a Second Language is the ideal guide for all supervisors working
with non-native-speaker students writing a thesis or dissertation in English. This accessible
text provides guidelines to facilitate successful writing using tasks which encourage students
to apply the points covered in each unit to their own situation.

Brian Paltridge is Associate Professor of TESOL at the University of Sydney in Australia.
Sue Starfield is Director of the Learning Centre, and a Visiting Fellow in the Department of
Linguistics, University of New South Wales. They both have extensive experience in working
with students writing a thesis or dissertation in English as their second language.

Scene 3

Thesis and Dissertation
Writing in a Second Language. 

Scene 4

Thesis and Dissertation
Writing in a Second Language

First published 2007 by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park,Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN. 

Scene 5

First published 2007 by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park,Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN

Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada
by Routledge
270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known
or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Paltridge, Brian.
Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language : a handbook for
supervisors / Brian Paltridge and Sue Starfield.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-415-37170-4 (alk. paper) -- ISBN 978-0-415-37173-5 (pbk. : alk.
paper) 1. Dissertations,Academic--Authorship. 2.Academic writing. 3. English
language--Study and teaching--Foreign speakers. I. Starfield, Sue, 1952- II.Title.
LB2369.P353 2007
808'.042--dc22
2006038301

ISBN10: 0–415–37170–8 (hbk)
ISBN10: 0–415–37173–2 (pbk)
ISBN10: 0–203–96081–5 (ebk)

ISBN13: 978–0–415–37170–4 (hbk)
ISBN13: 978–0–415–37173–5 (pbk)
ISBN13: 978–0–203–96081–3 (ebk)

This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2007.

“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s
collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”

Contents. List of illustrations
vi
Acknowledgements
viii. 

Scene 6

List of illustrations
vi
Acknowledgements
viii

2 Working with second-language speakers of English
22

3 Thesis writing in English as a second language
43

5 The overall shape of theses and dissertations
66

10 Writing Discussions and Conclusions
145

11 Writing the Abstract and Acknowledgements
155

12 Resources for thesis and dissertation writing
163

Illustrations. Figures. 1.1 Text and context in academic writing
18
2.1 Interrelationships between level of English language proficiency and research status
24
2.2 The role perception scale
38
3.1 A simplified model of the writing process
46
3.2 A more realistic model of the writing process
47
3.3 The reciprocal relationship of writing and thinking
47
6.1 The thesis hourglass
84
8.1 Visual map of typical components of a Methodology chapter
123
9.1 Making claims: some examples of hedging
143. 

Scene 7

1.1 Text and context in academic writing
18
2.1 Interrelationships between level of English language 
proficiency and research status
24
2.2 The role perception scale
38
3.1 A simplified model of the writing process
46
3.2 A more realistic model of the writing process
47
3.3 The reciprocal relationship of writing and thinking
47
6.1 The thesis hourglass
84
8.1 Visual map of typical components of a Methodology chapter
123
9.1 Making claims: some examples of hedging
143

Tables
1.1 The social and cultural context of theses and dissertations
8
1.2 Attitudes to knowledge, approaches to learning and different
levels of study
9
1.3 Characteristics of high and low quality theses
19
4.1 Purpose of each section of a research proposal
61
6.1 Typical moves in thesis Introductions
83
7.1 Degrees and the nature of the literature review
100
7.2 Steps and strategies for writing a literature review
104
7.3 Typical tenses used in the literature review
109
7.4 Choices of tense and reasons for their use
109
7.5 Linguistic strategies for commenting on previous research
111
7.6 Techniques for paraphrasing and summarizing
112
9.1 Typical elements in reporting Results sections of theses
135
10.1 Stance and engagement strategies
149
10.2 The typical structure of thesis-oriented Conclusions
152
10.3 Reporting, commenting and suggesting in the 
Conclusions section
153

Illustrations
vii. 11.1 Use of verb tenses in thesis and dissertation Abstracts
159
11.2 Moves in Acknowledgements sections
161. 

Scene 8

11.1 Use of verb tenses in thesis and dissertation Abstracts
159
11.2 Moves in Acknowledgements sections
161

2.1 Dai’s story
34
5.1 A ‘simple’ traditional thesis
68
5.2 A ‘complex’ traditional thesis
69
5.3 A topic-based thesis
71
5.4 A compilation of research articles presented as a PhD thesis
72
5.5 Summary of thesis types and their typical organizational
structures
73
5.6 Typical content of individual chapters
76
6.1 Language patterns in Move 3c
90
6.2 Extract from Introduction of a PhD thesis in physics
92
6.3 Extract from Introduction of a PhD thesis in history
95
7.1 Sample literature review chapters
102
8.1 Extract from table of contents of a thesis by compilation
115
8.2 Extract from table of contents of a PhD thesis in linguistics
116
8.3 Extract from table of contents of a PhD thesis in sociology
117
8.4 Extract from Research Design chapter of a PhD 
thesis in history
118
8.5 Extract from Methodology chapter of a PhD thesis
120
8.6 Example of justification of unit of analysis
121
8.7 Description and evaluation of data sources
124
8.8 Extract from Materials and Methods section of a PhD 
thesis in marine biology
125
8.9 Account of how data were processed from a PhD 
thesis in marine biology
127
8.10 Use of impersonal language in data analysis section 
of a PhD thesis in marine biology
128
8.11 Writer’s representation of herself as researcher in a PhD 
thesis in linguistics
130
8.12 Extract from Methodology chapter of a PhD thesis 
in which writer explicitly discusses the role of the researcher
131
9.1 Extract from Move 1 in Findings chapter of a PhD 
thesis in history
136
9.2 Extract from a PhD thesis in engineering illustrating Move 1
138
9.3 Extract from a PhD thesis in history showing Move 2
139
9.4 Extract from an engineering thesis showing use of Move 2
140
9.5 Extract from Move 3 of Findings chapter of a history thesis
142
9.6 Move 3 showing hedging in an engineering thesis
143
11.1 Analysis of a PhD thesis abstract
156

This book is the result of many years of teaching, talking and thinking about
thesis and dissertation writing with our students, colleagues, friends and
families. We thank them all. We would also like to acknowledge the many
doctoral and master’s students whose theses have contributed extracts to this
book. Specifically we would like to thank Dwight Atkinson, Diane Belcher,
Chris Casanave, Andy Curtis, Tony Dudley-Evans, Chris Feak, Liz Hamp-
Lyons, Alan Hirvela, Cynthia Nelson, Louise Ravelli and John Swales for
their interest, support and inspiration; Tracey-Lee Downey for her help with
illustrations; our anonymous reviewers as well as Philip Mudd at
RoutledgeFalmer for his support for our project and Lucy Wainwright, also
at RoutledgeFalmer, for seeing our project through to completion.
Being able to develop and teach our courses in thesis and dissertation writ-
ing has been and continues to be a rewarding experience for us both. From what
our students tell us, they find the courses very helpful with the development of
their own writing. Writing a research thesis in a language that is not your
native one is undoubtedly a challenge. We hope that other students and their
supervisors will find our book helpful in meeting that challenge and that the
students’ unique contribution to knowledge in their field will be enhanced.
Sue would especially like to acknowledge her parents for their uncondi-
tional love and support and thank Alan, Sophia and Jeremy for putting up
with her during the writing process. She would also like to thank Adrian Lee
and Richard Henry for their encouragement and her Learning Centre col-
leagues for being passionate about writing. Brian would like to acknowledge
the support he has in his faculty for the work that he does, and his colleagues
and research students there for making it the place to be that it is.. 

Scene 9

This book is the result of many years of teaching, talking and thinking about
thesis and dissertation writing with our students, colleagues, friends and
families. We thank them all. We would also like to acknowledge the many
doctoral and master’s students whose theses have contributed extracts to this
book. Specifically we would like to thank Dwight Atkinson, Diane Belcher,
Chris Casanave, Andy Curtis, Tony Dudley-Evans, Chris Feak, Liz Hamp-
Lyons, Alan Hirvela, Cynthia Nelson, Louise Ravelli and John Swales for
their interest, support and inspiration; Tracey-Lee Downey for her help with
illustrations; our anonymous reviewers as well as Philip Mudd at
RoutledgeFalmer for his support for our project and Lucy Wainwright, also
at RoutledgeFalmer, for seeing our project through to completion.
Being able to develop and teach our courses in thesis and dissertation writ-
ing has been and continues to be a rewarding experience for us both. From what
our students tell us, they find the courses very helpful with the development of
their own writing. Writing a research thesis in a language that is not your
native one is undoubtedly a challenge. We hope that other students and their
supervisors will find our book helpful in meeting that challenge and that the
students’ unique contribution to knowledge in their field will be enhanced.
Sue would especially like to acknowledge her parents for their uncondi-
tional love and support and thank Alan, Sophia and Jeremy for putting up
with her during the writing process. She would also like to thank Adrian Lee
and Richard Henry for their encouragement and her Learning Centre col-
leagues for being passionate about writing. Brian would like to acknowledge
the support he has in his faculty for the work that he does, and his colleagues
and research students there for making it the place to be that it is.

Background to the book. The aim of this book is to provide a handbook for supervisors who are work-
ing with students writing a thesis or dissertation1 in English as their second
language. The book aims to unpack some of the tacit understanding that
supervisors often have of the thesis or dissertation writing process that is
often not shared by their students, and in this case, students who come from
a language and culture background other than English. The book is also suit-
able for teachers who run courses or workshops on thesis and dissertation
writing for second-language students. There are practical examples, learning
tasks, and examples from completed theses and dissertations throughout the
book. The learning tasks are designed to help students develop the skills and
understandings necessary for successful thesis and dissertation writing. These
learning tasks include a focus on aspects of language use particular to thesis
and dissertation writing, as well as the social and cultural expectations partic-
ular to writing a thesis or dissertation, such as what is expected of students in
this kind of writing and at this level of study, expectations of students and
supervisors in the supervision and thesis writing process, the issue of discipli-
nary differences in thesis writing, and what examiners expect of theses and
dissertations written in English-medium universities.
The book includes a focus on theory and research, where appropriate, as well
as providing practical advice on thesis and dissertation writing for second-
language students. It discusses issues that are common to all thesis and
dissertation writers, such as understanding the setting and purpose of thesis
and dissertation writing, the place of audience in thesis and dissertation writ-
ing, understanding writer/reader relationships, issues of writer identity, and the
place of assumed background knowledge in thesis and dissertation writing.
Each unit of the book focuses on a particular aspect of thesis and disser-
tation writing and the research and supervision process. The sequencing of
the units follows the stages of carrying out research and writing a thesis or
dissertation. Each of the units includes tasks for supervisors to use with
their students. The tasks are written in a way that encourages students to. 

Scene 10

The aim of this book is to provide a handbook for supervisors who are work-
ing with students writing a thesis or dissertation1 in English as their second
language. The book aims to unpack some of the tacit understanding that
supervisors often have of the thesis or dissertation writing process that is
often not shared by their students, and in this case, students who come from
a language and culture background other than English. The book is also suit-
able for teachers who run courses or workshops on thesis and dissertation
writing for second-language students. There are practical examples, learning
tasks, and examples from completed theses and dissertations throughout the
book. The learning tasks are designed to help students develop the skills and
understandings necessary for successful thesis and dissertation writing. These
learning tasks include a focus on aspects of language use particular to thesis
and dissertation writing, as well as the social and cultural expectations partic-
ular to writing a thesis or dissertation, such as what is expected of students in
this kind of writing and at this level of study, expectations of students and
supervisors in the supervision and thesis writing process, the issue of discipli-
nary differences in thesis writing, and what examiners expect of theses and
dissertations written in English-medium universities.
The book includes a focus on theory and research, where appropriate, as well
as providing practical advice on thesis and dissertation writing for second-
language students. It discusses issues that are common to all thesis and
dissertation writers, such as understanding the setting and purpose of thesis
and dissertation writing, the place of audience in thesis and dissertation writ-
ing, understanding writer/reader relationships, issues of writer identity, and the
place of assumed background knowledge in thesis and dissertation writing.
Each unit of the book focuses on a particular aspect of thesis and disser-
tation writing and the research and supervision process. The sequencing of
the units follows the stages of carrying out research and writing a thesis or
dissertation. Each of the units includes tasks for supervisors to use with
their students. The tasks are written in a way that encourages students to

explore the points that are covered in each chapter in relation to their own
discipline-specific and academic situation.
While there are a large number of texts that offer support to students with
assignment writing, there are far fewer that offer support to students who are
writing a thesis or dissertation. Furthermore, assignment writing is a quanti-
tatively and qualitatively different task to writing a thesis or dissertation and
managing the writing process over a sustained period of time. There are a
number of books that offer advice to research students but very few of these
provide detailed instruction in the writing of the actual thesis and hardly any
offer specific advice to students from non-English-speaking backgrounds (see
Paltridge 2002 for further discussion of this).
We hope that the approach to the conceptualizing and teaching of thesis and
dissertation writing presented in this book will be of benefit to our disciplinary
colleagues. The approach adopted is one which explicitly teaches the expecta-
tions, conventions, structure and organization of the various sections of the
typical thesis and dissertation. It also draws on authentic instances of theses and
dissertations to illustrate these features of the texts. While the aim of this book
is to make the issues we discuss clear to second-language students and their
supervisors, there is much in this book that will also be of use to native-speaker
students, and to students who have already studied in an English-medium uni-
versity but have not previously written a text of the kind we are discussing.. 

Scene 11

explore the points that are covered in each chapter in relation to their own
discipline-specific and academic situation.
While there are a large number of texts that offer support to students with
assignment writing, there are far fewer that offer support to students who are
writing a thesis or dissertation. Furthermore, assignment writing is a quanti-
tatively and qualitatively different task to writing a thesis or dissertation and
managing the writing process over a sustained period of time. There are a
number of books that offer advice to research students but very few of these
provide detailed instruction in the writing of the actual thesis and hardly any
offer specific advice to students from non-English-speaking backgrounds (see
Paltridge 2002 for further discussion of this).
We hope that the approach to the conceptualizing and teaching of thesis and
dissertation writing presented in this book will be of benefit to our disciplinary
colleagues. The approach adopted is one which explicitly teaches the expecta-
tions, conventions, structure and organization of the various sections of the
typical thesis and dissertation. It also draws on authentic instances of theses and
dissertations to illustrate these features of the texts. While the aim of this book
is to make the issues we discuss clear to second-language students and their
supervisors, there is much in this book that will also be of use to native-speaker
students, and to students who have already studied in an English-medium uni-
versity but have not previously written a text of the kind we are discussing.

Background to thesis and dissertation writing 
in a second language

A large number of second-language students attending British, US,
Canadian, Australian and New Zealand universities are enrolled in a degree
that requires the writing of a thesis or dissertation in English. There are also
many students enrolled in degrees in places such as South Africa and Hong
Kong who are required to write a thesis or dissertation in English for whom
English is not their first or dominant language. Such students often have dif-
ficulty in meeting the demands of the kind of writing required of them in
this particular genre. This is especially the case for students who come from a
context where the conventions and expectations of academic writing may be
quite different to the situation they now find themselves in.
This chapter discusses:

●
the context in which theses and dissertations are produced and the impli-
cations of this for second-language writers from diverse linguistic and
cultural backgrounds;

●
the very particular social and cultural context of theses and dissertations
and how this impacts on what students write and how they can write it;

●
approaches to knowledge and approaches to learning at different levels of
study;

●
cross-cultural issues in thesis and dissertation writing;. 

Scene 12

●
cross-cultural issues in thesis and dissertation writing;

●
the issue of being a second-language writer in research settings;

●
critical issues in thesis and dissertation writing;

●
disciplinary differences in thesis and dissertation writing;

●
what universities and examiners expect of theses and dissertations.

The social and cultural context of thesis 
and dissertation writing

We have found that a useful way to discuss thesis and dissertation writing
with our students is by starting with an examination of the social and cultural
context in which the student’s thesis or dissertation is being produced.
Factors that might be discussed with the student, for example, include:

●
the focus and perspective of the text;

●
the intended audience for the text, their role and purpose in reading the
text;

●
the relationship between writers and readers of the text;

●
expectations, conventions and requirements for the text;

●
the background knowledge, values, and understandings it is assumed the
student shares with their readers, including what is important to their
reader and what is not;

●
the relationship the text has with other texts.

Each of these is important to consider as they all, in their way, have an
impact on what the student writes and the way they write it. Often these
issues are mutually understood by people working in the university, but not
explicitly stated to students. This discussion can include values and expec-
tations that are held in a particular area of study, the audience students are
writing for, and different expectations at different levels of study. We have
found it useful to have this discussion with students before they start writ-
ing their thesis or dissertation, as well as before we look at examples of
actual texts with them. Some of the issues we raise with our students are
discussed below.

The setting of the student’s text includes the kind of university and level of
study the thesis or dissertation is being written in. This may be a comprehen-
sive research university, or it may be a university of technology where
different sorts of work and different sorts of research projects might be more
especially valued. The thesis or dissertation may be being written for an

honours, a master’s, or a doctoral degree. This has implications for the
breadth and scale of the student’s research project.
Another important issue is the kind of study area the student’s text is being
written in; that is, whether it is written in what Becher and Trowler (2001)
call a ‘hard’ or a ‘soft’ discipline, a ‘pure’ or ‘applied’ discipline, or a ‘conver-
gent’ or ‘divergent’ area of study. This has important implications for
understanding the values, ideologies and research perspectives that are priori-
tized in the students’ area/s of study. Students can be asked, for example, to
consider whether academic staff in their area of study share the same basic ide-
ologies, judgments and values (a convergent area of study) or whether their
research perspectives are drawn from other areas of study (a divergent area of
study). They might consider whether there is more variation in what might be
considered ‘research’ in their particular area of study, and to what extent this
makes a difference as to what students can ‘say’ and do. This discussion helps
students to place their dissertation in its particular academic setting as well as
to bring to the fore the sets of values that hold in their area of study that might
be shared by members of academic staff, but not openly expressed by them.. 

Scene 13

honours, a master’s, or a doctoral degree. This has implications for the
breadth and scale of the student’s research project.
Another important issue is the kind of study area the student’s text is being
written in; that is, whether it is written in what Becher and Trowler (2001)
call a ‘hard’ or a ‘soft’ discipline, a ‘pure’ or ‘applied’ discipline, or a ‘conver-
gent’ or ‘divergent’ area of study. This has important implications for
understanding the values, ideologies and research perspectives that are priori-
tized in the students’ area/s of study. Students can be asked, for example, to
consider whether academic staff in their area of study share the same basic ide-
ologies, judgments and values (a convergent area of study) or whether their
research perspectives are drawn from other areas of study (a divergent area of
study). They might consider whether there is more variation in what might be
considered ‘research’ in their particular area of study, and to what extent this
makes a difference as to what students can ‘say’ and do. This discussion helps
students to place their dissertation in its particular academic setting as well as
to bring to the fore the sets of values that hold in their area of study that might
be shared by members of academic staff, but not openly expressed by them.

Research perspective, topic and purpose of the thesis 
or dissertation

Students can be asked to consider the research perspective and topic of their
research project and the extent to which this impacts on how they will write
their thesis or dissertation. They can consider, for example, whether they are
doing a quantitative or qualitative study or whether their research project is
an example of ‘mixed method’ research, and what particular assumptions
these perspectives imply. This includes what sorts of claims can be made in
the particular perspective and area of study, and what claims cannot.
Students can then be asked to consider the actual purpose of their research,
and in turn, their thesis or dissertation. This may, for example, be to answer a
question, to solve a problem, or to prove something, as well as to contribute
to knowledge in their area of study. The purpose may equally be to display
knowledge and understanding of a particular topic, to demonstrate particular
skills, to convince a reader, as well as, often, to ‘gain admission to a particular
area of study’. Students are often required in this kind of writing not only to
answer their research question/s, but also to ‘show what they know’ in doing
this (see Chapters 3, 5 and 6 where this is discussed in more detail).

The audience for theses and dissertations

A further issue that students should consider is the intended audience for their
thesis or dissertation, their readers’ role and purpose in reading their text, how
their readers will react to what they read, and the criteria they will use for
assessing their text. For example, are the students writing for academics in the

field, for their examiners, or for their supervisor? And who counts most in judg-
ing whether their text meets the requirements of their particular area of study?
Theses and dissertations are typically written for a primary readership of
one or more examiners. In some cases the student’s supervisor may be one of
the examiners and in other cases they may not. If the supervisor is not one of
the student’s examiners, they will be a secondary reader of the student’s text,
not a primary one. This difference between ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ reader-
ships (Brookes and Grundy 1990) is significant, and is often not immediately
obvious to students. In the case of thesis and dissertation writing, it is the pri-
mary reader that is the final judge as to the quality of the student’s piece of
work, rather than the secondary reader. As Kamler and Threadgold (1997:
53) point out, a dominant or ‘primary’ reader within the academy, ‘quite sim-
ply counts more than other readers’ (such as friends, learning advisors and
anyone else the student shows their text to). It is important, then, for stu-
dents to consider the expert, ‘all-powerful reader’ of their texts who can either
accept, or reject, their writing as being coherent and consistent with the con-
ventions of the target discourse community (Johns 1990) and how they will
(potentially) read their text.. 

Scene 14

field, for their examiners, or for their supervisor? And who counts most in judg-
ing whether their text meets the requirements of their particular area of study?
Theses and dissertations are typically written for a primary readership of
one or more examiners. In some cases the student’s supervisor may be one of
the examiners and in other cases they may not. If the supervisor is not one of
the student’s examiners, they will be a secondary reader of the student’s text,
not a primary one. This difference between ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ reader-
ships (Brookes and Grundy 1990) is significant, and is often not immediately
obvious to students. In the case of thesis and dissertation writing, it is the pri-
mary reader that is the final judge as to the quality of the student’s piece of
work, rather than the secondary reader. As Kamler and Threadgold (1997:
53) point out, a dominant or ‘primary’ reader within the academy, ‘quite sim-
ply counts more than other readers’ (such as friends, learning advisors and
anyone else the student shows their text to). It is important, then, for stu-
dents to consider the expert, ‘all-powerful reader’ of their texts who can either
accept, or reject, their writing as being coherent and consistent with the con-
ventions of the target discourse community (Johns 1990) and how they will
(potentially) read their text.

The relationship between writers and readers 
of theses and dissertations

Next, students can be asked to consider the relationship between their readers
and themselves as writers and how this impacts on what they say and how
they can say it. They can also be asked to consider how this relationship
changes for other academic texts such as research articles and conference pre-
sentations. Writers of theses and dissertations, for example, are typically
‘novices writing for experts’ whereas writers of research articles are generally
‘experts writing for experts’. Conference presentations, for research students,
are often a mix of the two.

Background knowledge, values and understandings 
in thesis and dissertation writing

Another useful topic to discuss is the background knowledge, values, and
understandings it is assumed students will share with their primary readers
(their examiners), what is important to their readers, and what is not. This,
students will discover, impacts on how much ‘display of knowledge’ their text
should contain, to what extent they should ‘show what they know’, as well as
what issues they should address, what boundaries they can cross (Kamler and
Threadgold 1997), and how they might do this.

Discourse community expectations and thesis and dissertation writing. 

Scene 15

Discourse community expectations and thesis 
and dissertation writing

It is also useful to discuss general expectations and conventions for theses and
dissertations, as well as the particular expectations, conventions and require-
ments of the students’ area of study. Students can be asked how a thesis or
dissertation might typically be organized and how this might vary for a par-
ticular research topic and kind of study.
The next issue is what might typically be contained in each chapter of the
thesis or dissertation and what amount of variation might be allowed in all of
this. A further important topic is the level of critical analysis required of stu-
dents at the particular level and area of study and the level of originality and
‘contribution to knowledge’ expected of the students’ research projects.

A final important point to discuss with students is the relationship their the-
sis or dissertation has with other texts such as monographs, journal articles
and research reports, as well as how they are expected to show the relationship
between what they are writing and what others have written before them on
their topic. Students can be asked how they might use other texts to support
arguments they wish to make, as well as differences between acceptable and
unacceptable textual borrowings (Pennycook 1996) and differences between
reporting and plagiarizing.

Table 1.1 (see p.8) is an analysis of the social and cultural context of theses
and dissertations based on this set of questions. This table shows the range of
factors that impact on how a student’s text is written, how it will be read and,
importantly, how it will be assessed.

1
Ask your student to consider the following in relation to their the-
sis or dissertation. To what extent do these factors influence what
they write and how they write it?

●
the institutional setting of the text;

Introduction
7. Attitudes to knowledge and different levels of study. 

Scene 16

Attitudes to knowledge and different 
levels of study

A further useful topic to discuss with students is attitudes to knowledge,
learning approaches, and teaching and learning strategies at different levels
of study – also how these are often different in English-medium universities
from those in second-language-speaker students’ own counties. Ballard and
Clanchy (1984, 1997) discuss each of these, including how they change as
students progress in their studies. For example, the primary focus in an
English secondary school education is often ‘conserving’ knowledge
whereas, as a student continues on to tertiary studies, there is often a shift
to critiquing and ‘extending’ knowledge. This may entail a shift from a
focus on correctness, to ‘simple’ originality and, in turn, to ‘creative’ origi-
nality and the creation of new knowledge. Students, thus, often move from
summarizing and describing information, to questioning, judging and
recombining information, through to a deliberate search for new ideas, data
and explanations. Higher levels of study still expect correctness and the
recombination of information, however. They also often expect the creation
of new knowledge, and a search for new evidence and interpretations
(Ballard and Clanchy 1997).
Table 1.2 presents relationships between teaching and learning strategies
and attitudes to knowledge at different levels of study in English-medium
institutions. This figure is a useful starting point for a discussion with stu-
dents on these issues, including cross-cultural differences and expectations
at different levels of study. Ballard and Clanchy point out, importantly, that
the attitudes and strategies they describe are not fixed and static, but on a
continuum. In some courses, students vary in the strategies and attitudes to
knowledge that they adopt. Equally, the learning strategies students adopt

2
Ask your student to consider how these factors influence how they
write their text:

●
university expectations, conventions and requirements for the
thesis or dissertation;

●
the background knowledge, values, and understandings it is
assumed they will share with their readers, including what is
important to their readers and what is not.

3
Ask your student to discuss the differences between reporting,
paraphrasing and plagiarizing. Ask what strategies they use when
they are paraphrasing other writers’ work (see Bailey 2003: 21–22
for a useful activity on paraphrasing).

Table 1.1 The social and cultural context of theses and dissertations. 

Scene 17

Table 1.1 The social and cultural context of theses and dissertations

Setting of 
The kind of university and level of study, the kind of degree (e.g.
the text
honours, master’s or doctoral, research or professional).
Study carried out in a ‘hard’ or ‘soft’, pure or applied, convergent or
divergent area of study (Becher and Trowler 2001).
Focus and 
Quantitative, qualitative or mixed method research.
perspective 
Claims that can be made, claims that cannot be made.
of the text
Faculty views on what ‘good’ research is.
Purpose of 
To answer a question, to solve a problem, to prove something, to 
the text
contribute to knowledge, to display knowledge and understanding,
to demonstrate particular skills, to convince a reader, to gain 
admission to a particular area of study.
Audience, role 
To judge the quality of the research.
and purpose  
Primary readership of one or more examiners, secondary 
in reading 
readership of everyone else who reads their work.
the text 
How readers will react to what they read, the criteria they will use
for assessing the text, who counts the most in judging the quality of 
the text.
Relationship 
Students writing for experts, for admission to an area of study (the 
between writers primary readership), students writing for peers, for advice (the 
and readers 
secondary readership).
of the text
Writer identity, authority and positioning.
Expectations,
An understanding and critical appraisal of relevant literature.
conventions 
A clearly defined and comprehensive investigation of the research topic.
and 
Appropriate use of research methods and techniques for the 
requirements
research question.
for the text
Ability to interpret results, develop conclusions and link them to
previous research.
Level of critical analysis, originality and contribution to knowledge
expected.
Literary quality and standard of presentation expected.
Level of grammatical accuracy required.
How the text is typically organized, how the text might vary for a 
particular research topic, area of study, kind of study and research 
perspective.
What is typically contained in each chapter.
The amount of variation allowed in what should be addressed and 
how it should be addressed.
The university’s formal submission requirements in terms of format,
procedures and timing.
Background 
The background knowledge, values, and understandings it is assumed 
knowledge,
students will share with their readers, what is important to their 
values, and 
readers, what is not important to their readers.
understandings
How much knowledge students are expected to display, the extent 
to which students should show what they know, what issues 
students should address, what boundaries students can cross.
Relationship 
How to show the relationship between the present research and 
the text has 
other people’s research on the topic, what counts as valid previous 
with other 
research, acceptable and unacceptable textual borrowings,

texts
differences between reporting and plagiarizing.

Source: Paltridge 2006: 100. By kind permission of Continuum

Table 1.2 Attitudes to knowledge, approaches to learning and different levels of study. 

Scene 18

Table 1.2 Attitudes to knowledge, approaches to learning and different levels of study

Attitudes to 
Conserving
Critiquing
Extending
knowledge
knowledge
knowledge
knowledge

Learning 
Reproductive
Analytical
Speculative

Teaching 
Role of the
almost exclusive
coordinator of
more 
strategies
teacher
source of 
learning resources;
experienced 
knowledge;
questioner,
colleague and 
direction/ 
critical guide,
collaborator;
guidance;
gadfly; principal 
preliminary
assessment
source of 
critic and 
assessment
advisor;
patron
Characteristic
transmission of
analysis of 
discussion/
activities
information and 
information and
advice on 
demonstration 
ideas within
ideas and 
of skills; overt 
interpretive
methods on 
moral and 
frameworks;
individual
social training
modelling of 
basis; modelling
demand for 
of hypothetical
critical approach 
and creative
to knowledge and 
thinking
conventions
Assessment
tests of memory
assignment/exams
independent 
recall and practical
requiring critical 
research; thesis
demonstration of 
analysis and problem
and papers of
skills; emphasis on solving; emphasis
publishable
replication; geared on originality, quality
quality; contri-
to ranking
of interpretation
bution to field 
of knowledge
Aim
simple transfer of
independent and 
development
knowledge and 
critical styles of 
of speculative,
skills
thinking;
critical 
development of 
intelligence;
capacity for theory 
expansion
and abstraction
of knowledge 
base (theory,
data,
techniques)
Learning 
Type of 
memorization
analytical and
speculating and
strategies
activities
and imitation;
critical thinking;
hypothesizing;
summarizing,
questioning, judging,
research design,
describing,
and recombining
implementation
identifying, and 
ideas and information and reporting;
applying formulae
into an argument
deliberate
and information
search for new 
ideas, data,
explanations

vary in relation to the different learning tasks they are undertaking.
Notwithstanding, English-medium academic institutions often share a
dominant set of attitudes towards knowledge and learning strategies that
are not immediately apparent to many second-language students writing a
thesis or dissertation in English (Ballard and Clanchy 1997).. 

Scene 19

vary in relation to the different learning tasks they are undertaking.
Notwithstanding, English-medium academic institutions often share a
dominant set of attitudes towards knowledge and learning strategies that
are not immediately apparent to many second-language students writing a
thesis or dissertation in English (Ballard and Clanchy 1997).

Table 1.2 continued Attitudes to knowledge, approaches to learning and different levels 
of study

Characteristic 
what?
why? how? how 
What if?
questions
valid? how 
important?
Aim
correctness
‘simple’ originality,
creative 
reshaping  
originality,
material
totally new 
into a different 
approach/

Source: adapted from Ballard and Clanchy 1997: 12

Discuss Table 1.2 with your student. How similar or different is this to
their previous study experiences? For example, which of these character-
istics most typically describe their secondary school education? Which
most typically describe their undergraduate and postgraduate study?
Which of these are important for them to consider in their thesis and
dissertation writing?

Cross-cultural issues in thesis and dissertation
writing

There are a number of cultural issues to consider in thesis and dissertation
writing. An important issue is cultural differences in the writing and reading
of this kind of academic genre. The area of research known as contrastive
rhetoric compares writing across languages and cultures. Many studies in this
area have focused on academic writing. Contrastive rhetoric has its origins in
the work of Kaplan (1966) who examined different patterns in the academic
writing of students from a number of different languages and cultures.

Although Kaplan has since revised his strong claim that differences in acade-
mic writing are the result of culturally different ways of thinking, many
studies have found important differences in the ways in which academic texts
are written in different languages and cultures. Other studies, however, have
found important similarities in academic writing across cultures. Kubota
(1997), for example, argues that studies in the area of contrastive rhetoric
tend to overgeneralize the cultural characteristics of writing from a few spe-
cific examples. She argues that just as Japanese expository writing, for
example, has more than one rhetorical style, so does English, and that it is
misleading to try to reduce rhetorical styles to the one single norm.
Leki (1997) has argued that contrastive rhetoric oversimplifies not only other
cultures but also ways of writing in English. She points out that while second-
language students may often be taught to write in a standard way, professional
writers do not necessarily write this way in English. She argues that many
rhetorical devices that are said to be typical of Chinese, Japanese and Thai writ-
ing, for example, also occur in certain contexts in English. Equally, features that
are said to be typical of English writing appear on occasion in other languages
as well. Contrastive rhetoric, she argues, can most usefully be seen, not as the
study of culture-specific thought patterns, but as the study of ‘the differences or
preferences in the pragmatic and strategic choices that writers make in response
to external demands and cultural histories’ (Leki 1997: 244).
Kubota and Lehner (2004) have argued that contrastive rhetoric takes a
deficit view of students’ second-language academic writing. They also argue
that much contrastive rhetoric research presents differences in academic writ-
ing that do not always exist. An example of this is the view of Chinese
academic writing being circular and indirect and English academic writing
being linear and direct. Some Chinese students have said:. 

Scene 20

Although Kaplan has since revised his strong claim that differences in acade-
mic writing are the result of culturally different ways of thinking, many
studies have found important differences in the ways in which academic texts
are written in different languages and cultures. Other studies, however, have
found important similarities in academic writing across cultures. Kubota
(1997), for example, argues that studies in the area of contrastive rhetoric
tend to overgeneralize the cultural characteristics of writing from a few spe-
cific examples. She argues that just as Japanese expository writing, for
example, has more than one rhetorical style, so does English, and that it is
misleading to try to reduce rhetorical styles to the one single norm.
Leki (1997) has argued that contrastive rhetoric oversimplifies not only other
cultures but also ways of writing in English. She points out that while second-
language students may often be taught to write in a standard way, professional
writers do not necessarily write this way in English. She argues that many
rhetorical devices that are said to be typical of Chinese, Japanese and Thai writ-
ing, for example, also occur in certain contexts in English. Equally, features that
are said to be typical of English writing appear on occasion in other languages
as well. Contrastive rhetoric, she argues, can most usefully be seen, not as the
study of culture-specific thought patterns, but as the study of ‘the differences or
preferences in the pragmatic and strategic choices that writers make in response
to external demands and cultural histories’ (Leki 1997: 244).
Kubota and Lehner (2004) have argued that contrastive rhetoric takes a
deficit view of students’ second-language academic writing. They also argue
that much contrastive rhetoric research presents differences in academic writ-
ing that do not always exist. An example of this is the view of Chinese
academic writing being circular and indirect and English academic writing
being linear and direct. Some Chinese students have said:

What do you mean when you say English academic writing is linear? In
English, an essay writer says what they are going to say, says it, then says
it again. This really is a circular, rather than a linear way of writing.
(Pennycook, personal communication)

Other times, a writing advisor may look at a student’s family name and make
assumptions about their writing on the basis of this, without knowing if they
are indeed of that language and culture background. An example of this is an
Australian student with a Chinese husband who was given advice on the cir-
cular nature of ‘oriental’ writing and the need to be more western in her
writing on the basis of her (Chinese) family name. In this case, the advisor
pre-judged the student’s writing and made assumptions about it solely on his
preconceived ideas about Chinese and English academic writing and the stu-
dent’s ethnicity (Pennycook 2001).
An important feature of a well-written text is the unity and connectedness
with which individual sentences relate to each other. This is, in part, the

result of how ideas are presented in the text, but also depends on the ways in
which the writer has created cohesive links within and between sentences as
well as within and between paragraphs in the text. This is especially impor-
tant for English writing which is sometimes referred to as writer-responsible, as
opposed to other languages (such as Japanese) where written texts are some-
times described as being reader-responsible (see Chapter 3 for further discussion
of this). That is, in English it is often the writer’s responsibility to make the
sense of their text clear to their reader. Theses and dissertations in English,
then, are characterized by a large amount of ‘display of knowledge’; that is,
telling the reader something they may already know and, in some cases, may
know better than the student. Often a second-language student will say ‘I
didn’t say that because I thought you already knew it’. This, however, is
exactly what thesis and dissertation writers do in English, and is something
many second-language students may find strange or unnatural.
It is important, then, not to take a stereotyped view of how students from
one culture will necessarily write in another. There may be substantial differ-
ences, and there may not. It is not always easy to predict what these
differences may be. One way of finding this out is to ask students if they have
written the same kind of text in their first language and in what ways that
text was similar or different to the one they are now writing in English.
Prince (2000) did this in a study in which she asked Polish and Chinese stu-
dents who had already written a dissertation in their first language how
similar or different they found dissertation writing in English. She found
that, although the students had all written a dissertation in their first lan-
guage, they had little idea of how they should do this in English. She also
found that different students had different views on how they wanted to rep-
resent themselves in their English texts. She argues that we ‘should be wary of
generalizing about students from different cultural backgrounds, because all
students are individuals’ (Prince 2000: 1) and may have their own preferences
and ways of writing that are especially important to them.. 

Scene 21

result of how ideas are presented in the text, but also depends on the ways in
which the writer has created cohesive links within and between sentences as
well as within and between paragraphs in the text. This is especially impor-
tant for English writing which is sometimes referred to as writer-responsible, as
opposed to other languages (such as Japanese) where written texts are some-
times described as being reader-responsible (see Chapter 3 for further discussion
of this). That is, in English it is often the writer’s responsibility to make the
sense of their text clear to their reader. Theses and dissertations in English,
then, are characterized by a large amount of ‘display of knowledge’; that is,
telling the reader something they may already know and, in some cases, may
know better than the student. Often a second-language student will say ‘I
didn’t say that because I thought you already knew it’. This, however, is
exactly what thesis and dissertation writers do in English, and is something
many second-language students may find strange or unnatural.
It is important, then, not to take a stereotyped view of how students from
one culture will necessarily write in another. There may be substantial differ-
ences, and there may not. It is not always easy to predict what these
differences may be. One way of finding this out is to ask students if they have
written the same kind of text in their first language and in what ways that
text was similar or different to the one they are now writing in English.
Prince (2000) did this in a study in which she asked Polish and Chinese stu-
dents who had already written a dissertation in their first language how
similar or different they found dissertation writing in English. She found
that, although the students had all written a dissertation in their first lan-
guage, they had little idea of how they should do this in English. She also
found that different students had different views on how they wanted to rep-
resent themselves in their English texts. She argues that we ‘should be wary of
generalizing about students from different cultural backgrounds, because all
students are individuals’ (Prince 2000: 1) and may have their own preferences
and ways of writing that are especially important to them.

There is also potential for misunderstandings between students and their
supervisors in the kind of cross-cultural setting involved in supervising a
second-language student. The area of research known as cross-cultural prag-
matics looks at this in particular. Researchers in this area have looked at the
difficulties created by transferring one behaviour or rhetorical strategy into
another language and culture without realizing things may be done differ-
ently in that language and culture. It may be something as simple as
walking into someone’s office without knocking (because they saw the door
was open) or it may involve transferring the way of asking for something
from one culture into another without realizing the way of doing this is dif-
ferent in the other language and culture. A student may think, for example,

that adding the word ‘please’ adds politeness to a request, which in some
ways it does, without realizing that sending their supervisor an email say-
ing ‘I’ve finished Chapter 3. Please check it’ is not sufficiently polite (in
most circumstances) for this kind of request.
Different views of cultural appropriateness, thus, can lead to misunder-
standings and prevent effective cross-cultural communication. This is
particularly the case where students and supervisors come from different lan-
guage and cultural backgrounds. As Cargill (2000) points out, although
students have passed the university’s English language admission require-
ments, they are often under-prepared for the face-to-face interactions that are
part of the student/supervisor arrangement. These face-to-face interactions
are a crucial part of the supervisory process. They are, however, fraught with
the potential for misunderstandings, especially in cross-cultural communica-
tion situations (Moses 1984).
Supervisors and students, then, need to be aware of and expect cross-cul-
tural differences in their interactions with each other. If communication
problems arise, they need to be prepared to talk about them. Native speakers
of a language, in fact, are often much less tolerant of these kinds of errors in
cross-cultural communication situations than they are, for example, of gram-
matical errors. If a student says something the supervisor thought was rude, it
is easy for the supervisor to think the student ‘meant to be rude’, rather than
that they did not now how to do something in a culturally different way.
These are issues which are discussed in further chapters of the book.. 

Scene 22

that adding the word ‘please’ adds politeness to a request, which in some
ways it does, without realizing that sending their supervisor an email say-
ing ‘I’ve finished Chapter 3. Please check it’ is not sufficiently polite (in
most circumstances) for this kind of request.
Different views of cultural appropriateness, thus, can lead to misunder-
standings and prevent effective cross-cultural communication. This is
particularly the case where students and supervisors come from different lan-
guage and cultural backgrounds. As Cargill (2000) points out, although
students have passed the university’s English language admission require-
ments, they are often under-prepared for the face-to-face interactions that are
part of the student/supervisor arrangement. These face-to-face interactions
are a crucial part of the supervisory process. They are, however, fraught with
the potential for misunderstandings, especially in cross-cultural communica-
tion situations (Moses 1984).
Supervisors and students, then, need to be aware of and expect cross-cul-
tural differences in their interactions with each other. If communication
problems arise, they need to be prepared to talk about them. Native speakers
of a language, in fact, are often much less tolerant of these kinds of errors in
cross-cultural communication situations than they are, for example, of gram-
matical errors. If a student says something the supervisor thought was rude, it
is easy for the supervisor to think the student ‘meant to be rude’, rather than
that they did not now how to do something in a culturally different way.
These are issues which are discussed in further chapters of the book.

1
Ask your student to tell you what is typical of academic writing in
their first language and culture. Then ask them to compare this to
their understanding of academic writing in English.
2
Ask your student to think of a situation where they have had a
cross-cultural communication problem in an academic setting.
Discuss what happened and what might have caused the mis-
communication. Think of ways in which the situation might have
been resolved.

Second-language academic writing and identity

Writer identity is a key issue in written academic discourse, and especially
thesis and dissertation writing. This is a particularly difficult issue for many
second-language writers. Academic writing is often presented to students as
something that is faceless and impersonal. Students are told, for example, ‘to
leave their personalities at the door’ (Hyland 2002: 352) and not to use per-
sonal pronouns such as ‘I’ which show what is being said is the student’s view

or place in things. As Hyland points out, however, ‘almost everything we
write says something about us and the sort of relationship that we want to set
up with our readers’. Establishing writer identity is often difficult for second-
language writers. This is further complicated by students having a different
way of writing and different ‘voice’ in their first-language academic writing
(see Hirvela and Belcher 2001 for further discussion of this).
Prince (2000) looked at the issue of writer identity in second-language
thesis writing. Her interest was in the ways in which second-language writers
might be influenced (or not) by their experience of having written a thesis in
their first language and culture. She looked at the experiences of a group of
Chinese and Polish students, all of whom had written a thesis in their first
language prior to writing a thesis in English. She found a major theme that
emerged in her study was whether the students had to give up, or change,
their personal identity in order to write a successful thesis in English. Prince
tells how one of her Polish students, Ilona, fiercely fought to retain her per-
sonal and individual style of writing, but in the end found she had to give
this away in order to pass.
Bartolome (1998: xiii) argues that learning to succeed in western academic
settings is not just a matter of language, but of knowing the ‘linguistically
contextualised language’ of the particular discourse that is valued in the par-
ticular academic setting. Many students find this a difficult thing to do. They
may fear a loss of cultural identity and not wish to be ‘drowned’ in the new
academic culture. Ilona, the Polish student in Prince’s study, felt exactly this.
Other student experiences reported on in the research literature, however,
have been slightly different. A Chinese student, for example, in Shen’s (1989)
study felt that learning to write in a new way added another dimension to
himself and to his view of the world. This did not mean, he said, that he had
lost his Chinese identity. Indeed, he said, he would never lose this. Students
do, however, have to learn to write in a way that is often new and different for
them and have to balance their new identity with their old one. This is as
much about cultural views of writing as it is about new and different rela-
tionships between student writers with their new and imagined readers, their
supervisors and their examiners. As Silva and Matsuda point out, writing is
always embedded in a complex web of relationships between writers and
readers. These relationships, further, are constantly changing. As they argue:. 

Scene 23

or place in things. As Hyland points out, however, ‘almost everything we
write says something about us and the sort of relationship that we want to set
up with our readers’. Establishing writer identity is often difficult for second-
language writers. This is further complicated by students having a different
way of writing and different ‘voice’ in their first-language academic writing
(see Hirvela and Belcher 2001 for further discussion of this).
Prince (2000) looked at the issue of writer identity in second-language
thesis writing. Her interest was in the ways in which second-language writers
might be influenced (or not) by their experience of having written a thesis in
their first language and culture. She looked at the experiences of a group of
Chinese and Polish students, all of whom had written a thesis in their first
language prior to writing a thesis in English. She found a major theme that
emerged in her study was whether the students had to give up, or change,
their personal identity in order to write a successful thesis in English. Prince
tells how one of her Polish students, Ilona, fiercely fought to retain her per-
sonal and individual style of writing, but in the end found she had to give
this away in order to pass.
Bartolome (1998: xiii) argues that learning to succeed in western academic
settings is not just a matter of language, but of knowing the ‘linguistically
contextualised language’ of the particular discourse that is valued in the par-
ticular academic setting. Many students find this a difficult thing to do. They
may fear a loss of cultural identity and not wish to be ‘drowned’ in the new
academic culture. Ilona, the Polish student in Prince’s study, felt exactly this.
Other student experiences reported on in the research literature, however,
have been slightly different. A Chinese student, for example, in Shen’s (1989)
study felt that learning to write in a new way added another dimension to
himself and to his view of the world. This did not mean, he said, that he had
lost his Chinese identity. Indeed, he said, he would never lose this. Students
do, however, have to learn to write in a way that is often new and different for
them and have to balance their new identity with their old one. This is as
much about cultural views of writing as it is about new and different rela-
tionships between student writers with their new and imagined readers, their
supervisors and their examiners. As Silva and Matsuda point out, writing is
always embedded in a complex web of relationships between writers and
readers. These relationships, further, are constantly changing. As they argue:

the writer’s task is not as simple as constructing an accurate representa-
tion of reality; the writer also has to negotiate, through the construction
of the text, his or her own view of these elements of writing with the
views held by the readers.
(Silva and Matsuda 2002: 253)

Student writers, then:. do not write in isolation but within networks of more and less powerfully
situated colleagues and community members. They learn to forge
alliances with those community members with whom they share values
or whom they perceive will benefit them in some way and to resist when
accommodating does not suit them.
(Casanave 2002: xiii–xiv). 

Scene 24

do not write in isolation but within networks of more and less powerfully
situated colleagues and community members. They learn to forge
alliances with those community members with whom they share values
or whom they perceive will benefit them in some way and to resist when
accommodating does not suit them.
(Casanave 2002: xiii–xiv)

These are all factors that influence what a student writes and how they posi-
tion themselves in relation to what they write.
A further complication is that some students may come from backgrounds
where they have considerable standing in their field of study and find it diffi-
cult to be told they need to take on the voice of a novice academic writer as
they write in their second language. Hirvela and Belcher (2001) discuss this
issue, arguing that we need to know more about the ways our students pre-
sent themselves in their first-language writing, and about their first-language
and culture identities, so we can help them deal with the issue of identity in
their second-language academic writing. The issue of writer identity, thus, is
important and is a theme we return to in later chapters of this book.

1
Ask your student to discuss how they show their opinion about
something in their first-language writing. Is this the same in
English or different? How easy or difficult do they find doing this
in English? Why?
2
The quotes below relate what some second-language students in a
study carried out by Cadman (2000) had to say about expressing
opinions in thesis writing. Show these to your student and ask
them to comment on them. How similar or different are these to
how they feel?

It’s not really easy to be critical of the works of others. This is con-
trary to what I’ve learned from my mother who was my first teacher.
To criticize and to judge the articles or literature are something
new for me, because in my undergraduate study in [my home coun-
try] our study approaches were more passive, we became receivers of
knowledge and we rarely argued about our subjects.

Disciplinary differences in thesis and dissertation
writing
Disciplinary differences in academic writing have been studied by a number
of researchers. Ken Hyland (1999; 2005; 2005b) for example has looked at

disciplinary differences in research articles and academic textbooks. These are
not the same as theses and dissertations, however. Research articles and text-
books have different audiences and different goals from theses and dissertations.
Research articles, as mentioned earlier, are ‘experts writing for experts’. Thesis
and dissertation writing, however, is much more a case of students writing ‘for
admission to an area of study’. While there are some similarities between each
of these kinds of texts, there are also important differences.
Hyland’s (2004a) study of master’s and doctoral students’ writing points
to many of the unique features of thesis and dissertation writing, as well as
important disciplinary differences in this kind of writing. One important
feature he examines is metadiscourse in thesis and dissertation writing; that is,
the ways thesis writers use language to organize what they want to say in
their text, how they ‘shape their arguments to the needs and expectations of
their target readers’ (Hyland 2004a: 134) and how they show their stance
towards the content and the reader of their text. This topic is returned to in
detail later in this book. It is important to point out, however, that Hyland
did find there were important differences in the use of metadiscourse across
disciplines. He also found there were differences in the use of metadiscourse
across degrees. He found, for example, that PhD students used much more
metadiscourse to show the organization of their texts than did master’s stu-
dents. This could be partly explained, he suggests, by the longer length of
PhD texts requiring students to show the arrangement of their texts more
than at the master’s level. It could also be, he suggests, the result of doctoral
students being generally more sophisticated writers than master’s students
and much more aware of the need to write reader-friendly texts and to
engage with their readers. In terms of disciplinary differences he found social
science disciplines used the most metadiscourse overall, especially in the use
of hedges (such as possible, might, tend to and perhaps). The social sciences stu-
dents also used more attitude markers (such as unfortunately, surprisingly, and
interestingly) and self mentions (such as I, we, my and our).
Thompson (1999) carried out a study in which he interviewed PhD supervi-
sors about organization, presentation, citation and argumentation practices in
PhD theses in different areas of study. He looked, in particular, at theses written
in the areas of agricultural botany and agricultural economics. He found a wide
range of differences, even in the length of the texts that he examined. He also
found quite different views of how students were told they should position
themselves in relation to their texts. One supervisor, for example, argued that
the research project should be the main focus of the thesis and the author should
not intrude on this by using the personal ‘I’ in their writing. Another supervi-
sor gave the opposite advice when he felt the use of personal pronouns would
help the student to communicate their ideas. Thompson’s work suggests that is
really not possible to say there is one single way in which theses and disserta-
tions should be written in a university. How the thesis is written will be
influenced by a number of things. It will be influenced by the set of values. 

Scene 25

disciplinary differences in research articles and academic textbooks. These are
not the same as theses and dissertations, however. Research articles and text-
books have different audiences and different goals from theses and dissertations.
Research articles, as mentioned earlier, are ‘experts writing for experts’. Thesis
and dissertation writing, however, is much more a case of students writing ‘for
admission to an area of study’. While there are some similarities between each
of these kinds of texts, there are also important differences.
Hyland’s (2004a) study of master’s and doctoral students’ writing points
to many of the unique features of thesis and dissertation writing, as well as
important disciplinary differences in this kind of writing. One important
feature he examines is metadiscourse in thesis and dissertation writing; that is,
the ways thesis writers use language to organize what they want to say in
their text, how they ‘shape their arguments to the needs and expectations of
their target readers’ (Hyland 2004a: 134) and how they show their stance
towards the content and the reader of their text. This topic is returned to in
detail later in this book. It is important to point out, however, that Hyland
did find there were important differences in the use of metadiscourse across
disciplines. He also found there were differences in the use of metadiscourse
across degrees. He found, for example, that PhD students used much more
metadiscourse to show the organization of their texts than did master’s stu-
dents. This could be partly explained, he suggests, by the longer length of
PhD texts requiring students to show the arrangement of their texts more
than at the master’s level. It could also be, he suggests, the result of doctoral
students being generally more sophisticated writers than master’s students
and much more aware of the need to write reader-friendly texts and to
engage with their readers. In terms of disciplinary differences he found social
science disciplines used the most metadiscourse overall, especially in the use
of hedges (such as possible, might, tend to and perhaps). The social sciences stu-
dents also used more attitude markers (such as unfortunately, surprisingly, and
interestingly) and self mentions (such as I, we, my and our).
Thompson (1999) carried out a study in which he interviewed PhD supervi-
sors about organization, presentation, citation and argumentation practices in
PhD theses in different areas of study. He looked, in particular, at theses written
in the areas of agricultural botany and agricultural economics. He found a wide
range of differences, even in the length of the texts that he examined. He also
found quite different views of how students were told they should position
themselves in relation to their texts. One supervisor, for example, argued that
the research project should be the main focus of the thesis and the author should
not intrude on this by using the personal ‘I’ in their writing. Another supervi-
sor gave the opposite advice when he felt the use of personal pronouns would
help the student to communicate their ideas. Thompson’s work suggests that is
really not possible to say there is one single way in which theses and disserta-
tions should be written in a university. How the thesis is written will be
influenced by a number of things. It will be influenced by the set of values

underlying the particular discipline in which it is written, by the research per-
spective the student adopts, as well as by advice that is given to the student by
their supervisor (see Chapter 5 for further discussion of thesis types and disci-
plinary differences in thesis and dissertation writing).. 

Scene 26

underlying the particular discipline in which it is written, by the research per-
spective the student adopts, as well as by advice that is given to the student by
their supervisor (see Chapter 5 for further discussion of thesis types and disci-
plinary differences in thesis and dissertation writing).

1
The chart in Figure 1.1 illustrates the relationship between the stu-
dent’s text, their course of study, the academic discipline in which
they are writing, and the institution in which they are studying.
Each of these has an influence on the form and content of the stu-
dents’ text and needs to be considered in terms of its influence on
what students write and how they write it. Ask your student to
look at this figure and to discuss how each of these impact on what
they write and how they write it.
2
Ask your student to go to the library, or to search an online thesis
database (see Chapter 12), and make a copy of the table of contents
of three theses or dissertations written in their area of study. Ask
them also to copy the table of contents from three theses or disser-
tations written in other, quite different, areas of study. Ask your
student to make notes about the similarities and differences
between each of these theses or dissertations. What seems to be typ-
ical of a thesis or dissertation written in their area of study and what
does not?

What universities and examiners expect of theses
and dissertations

While theses and dissertations may be written differently in different areas of
study, universities typically apply the same criteria to their examination.
Many universities send examiners a list of criteria to refer to while they are
reading a student’s thesis or dissertation. These often vary according to the
level of study. They are normally, however, some kind of variation on the fol-
lowing list of points:

●
an awareness and understanding of relevant previous research on the
topic;

●
a critical appraisal of previous research on the topic;

●
a clearly defined and comprehensive investigation of the topic;

●
the appropriate application of research methods and techniques;

●
a thorough presentation and interpretation of results;

●
appropriately developed conclusions and implications that are linked to
the research framework and findings;. 

Scene 27

●
appropriately developed conclusions and implications that are linked to
the research framework and findings;

●
a high standard of literary quality and presentation;

●
a contribution to knowledge on the particular topic.

The last of these points, contribution to knowledge, is especially important
at the PhD level where examiners are often asked if the thesis ‘makes a sub-
stantive original contribution’ to knowledge in the particular area. It is
helpful to discuss these criteria with students early on in their candidature
so they can consider how they impact on how they carry out and write up
their research.
A special edition of the International Journal of Educational Research pub-
lished in 2004 addressed the issue of doctoral thesis examination. The study
by Holbrook et al. (2004) published in this issue looked at 803 examiners’
reports on 301 theses from three different universities. From their analysis
they identified the list of qualities shown in Table 1.3 (on p.19) as being
characteristic of ‘high quality’ PhD theses. Their definition of a high qual-
ity thesis was one that was accepted for the degree by all examiners without
requiring any revisions. These qualities include the significance of the stu-
dent’s research topic, potential of the thesis for publication, use of the
research literature in the design of the study and writing of the thesis, logic

Figure 1.1 Text and context in academic writing
Source: adapted from Samraj 2002

and clarity of the reporting and discussion of findings, and the extent to
which the findings can be applied in the field.
Holbrook and her colleagues also identified characteristics of ‘low qual-
ity’ PhD theses. Low quality theses were defined as theses that were
required to be revised and resubmitted for re-examination by at least half of
the examiners. The characteristics of these theses are also shown in Table
1.3. With low quality theses there was a wider range of agreement amongst
examiners. The reports written for these theses were much longer than
those that were written for high quality theses. They contained a prepon-
derance of instructed comment, more negative judgment, and a greater
emphasis on editorial errors and inaccuracies in the referencing of the liter-
ature than was the case for high quality thesis reports.. 

Scene 28

and clarity of the reporting and discussion of findings, and the extent to
which the findings can be applied in the field.
Holbrook and her colleagues also identified characteristics of ‘low qual-
ity’ PhD theses. Low quality theses were defined as theses that were
required to be revised and resubmitted for re-examination by at least half of
the examiners. The characteristics of these theses are also shown in Table
1.3. With low quality theses there was a wider range of agreement amongst
examiners. The reports written for these theses were much longer than
those that were written for high quality theses. They contained a prepon-
derance of instructed comment, more negative judgment, and a greater
emphasis on editorial errors and inaccuracies in the referencing of the liter-
ature than was the case for high quality thesis reports.

Table 1.3 Characteristics of high and low quality theses

Thesis topic and approach
Significance and challenge
Questionable integrity
of the topic
of the approach of 
Fusion of originality of the
thesis or presentation
approach with realization 
of findings
of a significant contribution
to the field
Literature review
Expert use of the literature
Inadequate coverage or 
in design of the study and 
focus of the literature in
discussion of the findings
relation to the study
Thorough, clear and incisive
Inaccuracies and 
reporting of the literature
omissions in referencing
Communicative 
Manifest editorial
competence
inadequacies
Publications arising
Recognized need for early
publication of/from the 
study

1
Ask your student to look at the criteria on pp.17–18 and in Table
1.3 and discuss how each of these impacts on how they will carry
out and write up their research.
2
The following are quotes from studies which have looked at thesis
examination. Ask your student to read these quotes and to discuss
what they mean for the writing of their thesis.

Overview of the book. This chapter has provided a background to thesis and dissertation writing as
well as introducing a number of issues that are of particular relevance to sec-
ond-language thesis and dissertation writers. It has discussed the social and
cultural contexts of thesis and dissertation writing and factors within this
context that impact on the writing of the student’s thesis and dissertation. It
has discussed the relationship between thesis writers and readers, including
what examiners expect to see in a successful student text. It has also discussed
disciplinary differences in thesis and dissertation writing, as well as
approaches to knowledge at different levels of study. Cross-cultural issues and
writer identity in thesis and dissertation writing have also been discussed. A
number of these themes will be taken up in greater detail further in the book.
The next chapter of the book discusses what it means to be a non-native-
speaker research student in an English-medium university. It looks at
definitions of the ‘non-native-speaker student’ and the challenges that face
non-native-speaker students in this role. It discusses, in more detail, cross-
cultural communication problems between non-native-speaker students and
their supervisors as well as suggesting strategies for dealing with these. It also
offers suggestions for ways in which supervisors can help support non-native-
speaker students in learning to become successful research students and thesis
or dissertation writers.. 

Scene 29

This chapter has provided a background to thesis and dissertation writing as
well as introducing a number of issues that are of particular relevance to sec-
ond-language thesis and dissertation writers. It has discussed the social and
cultural contexts of thesis and dissertation writing and factors within this
context that impact on the writing of the student’s thesis and dissertation. It
has discussed the relationship between thesis writers and readers, including
what examiners expect to see in a successful student text. It has also discussed
disciplinary differences in thesis and dissertation writing, as well as
approaches to knowledge at different levels of study. Cross-cultural issues and
writer identity in thesis and dissertation writing have also been discussed. A
number of these themes will be taken up in greater detail further in the book.
The next chapter of the book discusses what it means to be a non-native-
speaker research student in an English-medium university. It looks at
definitions of the ‘non-native-speaker student’ and the challenges that face
non-native-speaker students in this role. It discusses, in more detail, cross-
cultural communication problems between non-native-speaker students and
their supervisors as well as suggesting strategies for dealing with these. It also
offers suggestions for ways in which supervisors can help support non-native-
speaker students in learning to become successful research students and thesis
or dissertation writers.

●
be a report of work that others would want to read;

●
tell a compelling story articulately whilst pre-empting
inevitable critiques;

●
carry the reader into complex realms, and inform and educate
him/her;

●
be sufficiently speculative or original to command respectful
peer attention.
(Winter et al. 2000: 32–35; Mullins and Kiley 2002: 372)

One of the common descriptors of a poor thesis, across all disci-
plines, was ‘sloppiness’. Sloppiness might be demonstrated by
typographical errors, or mistakes in calculations, referencing or
footnotes. The concern with sloppiness was that examiners consid-
ered it was an indication that the research itself might not be
rigorous and the results and conclusions could not be trusted.
(Mullins and Kiley 2002: 378)

Note. 1 The terms ‘thesis’ and ‘dissertation’ are used in different ways in different parts of the world.
In this book, the term ‘dissertation’ is used for undergraduate and master’s degrees and ‘the-
sis’ for doctoral degrees.. 

Scene 30

1 The terms ‘thesis’ and ‘dissertation’ are used in different ways in different parts of the world.
In this book, the term ‘dissertation’ is used for undergraduate and master’s degrees and ‘the-
sis’ for doctoral degrees.

The first language of many international candidates is not English and
this adds to the time and effort supervisors in all disciplines put into ver-
bal communication and candidates’ written work. Supervisors are
additionally burdened both by their knowledge of the distinct linguistic,
cultural, familial and professional pressures that international candidates’
circumstances exert on the candidate, and by perceived financial pres-
sures from universities to take on increasing numbers of full-fee-paying
international candidates.
(Sinclair 2005: 19). 

Scene 31

The first language of many international candidates is not English and
this adds to the time and effort supervisors in all disciplines put into ver-
bal communication and candidates’ written work. Supervisors are
additionally burdened both by their knowledge of the distinct linguistic,
cultural, familial and professional pressures that international candidates’
circumstances exert on the candidate, and by perceived financial pres-
sures from universities to take on increasing numbers of full-fee-paying
international candidates.
(Sinclair 2005: 19)

The above extract from a recent investigation into the pedagogy of ‘good’
PhD supervision provides a summary of the motivation behind the writing of
this book. Supervising research students who are second-language speakers of
English, whatever the language background of the supervisor, provides an
additional challenge in terms of the multiple factors alluded to in the quote.
It would appear that there is an absence of relevant material in this area that
might support supervisors of second-language speakers. A recent survey of 22
guides to supervising doctoral students and dissertation writing revealed that
only five of the books provided a comprehensive analysis of the needs of inter-
national students (Dedrick and Watson 2002).
At the same time, it is our experience that many international students,
regardless of language background, are uniquely placed to carry out and con-
tribute to important and valuable research by virtue of the diverse perspectives
that they are able to bring to the research. Not all second-language speakers of
English enrolled in research degrees are however international students: many
are citizens or permanent residents of the country in which they are studying
and the topic begs a wider investigation. Above all, our intention in writing
this book is to reduce the perception that the supervision of students from
non-English-speaking backgrounds need be an ‘additional burden’.

Thesis and Dissertation Writing in a Second Language: A Handbook for Supervisors