A doctoral student of physics writing for publication: A sociopolitically-oriented case study

Abstract

This is a sociopolitically-oriented qualitative case study [Casanave, C. P. (2003). Looking ahead to more sociopolitically-oriented case study research in L2 writing scholarship (But should it be called “post-process”?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 85–102.] of the writing-for-publication experience of an NNSE (nonnative speaker of English) doctoral student of physics. Situated broadly within the argument that written texts are sociopolitical artifacts, and drawing upon the notion of “legitimate peripheral participation” [Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.] and a social constructionist perspective on research writing, the study describes how the novice scholar’s writing-for-publication process is influenced by the power-infused relationships between him and the institutional context where publication is a graduation requirement for the doctoral students, the supervisors who possess greater expertise and authority, as well as the gatekeepers of his target journals in the Centre. I conclude by supporting an incorporation in English for Academic/Research Purposes (EAP/ERP) classrooms discussions of the sociopolitical issues as revealed in the present study.

Introduction

Casanave (2003) has called for more sociopolitically-oriented case study research in L2 writing scholarship, i.e., situating L2 writing research “in more complex and nuanced sociopolitical contexts than in the past” (p. 86). Previous research that took a sociopolitical perspective on L2 writing has looked at nonnative speaker of English (NNSE) undergraduate or graduate students fulfilling coursework or exams (Johns, 1991, Leki, 2001, Spack, 1997), but such a perspective has rarely been taken to examine the international publication effort of NNSE graduate students. In the case of NNSE graduate student novice scholars writing for international publication, the sociopolitical implications of their publication process can be profound, with their status of potentially being “less powerful” at multiple levels, in relation to the more powerful institutional authority (where the rule of “publish or perish” takes various forms), to the senior academics such as their supervisors (who possess the level of expertise the novices are still striving for), and to the gatekeepers of their target journals in the Centre of the English-dominant international academia.¹

The present study describes the writing-for-publication experience of an NNSE doctoral student of physics from a sociopolitical perspective. The study is situated broadly within an argument that is increasingly receiving endorsement in the literature of L2 writing, i.e., written texts are sociopolitical artifacts, social by being “material objects fashioned by people”, and political by being “produced in power-infused settings such as classrooms and discourse communities” and “used to further political as well as intellectual and instructional agendas” (Casanave, 2003, p. 87). Specifically concerned with a case of writing for scholarly publication, this study further draws from two theoretical conceptions: the social constructionist perspective on research writing (e.g., Bazerman, 1988), and the notion of “legitimate peripheral participation” (LPP) (Lave & Wenger, 1991).

The view of written texts as sociopolitical artifacts holds that “writers’ sociopolitical purposes and the sociopolitical contexts in which they write influence their strategies and processes for writing” (Casanave, 2003, p. 90). This has been particularly well-illustrated by previous studies on L2 students in power-infused institutional settings developing coping strategies to pass the high-stake competency essay exam or to earn good credits for course papers (Johns, 1991, Leki, 2001, Spack, 1997). From these studies, it is seen that writers’ sociopolitical purposes are embedded in the sociopolitical contexts in which they write. Compared with the student writers in these previous studies, the novice scientist in the present study has a different sociopolitical purpose in his pursuit of publication in prestigious target journals, and the purpose is embedded in a different sociopolitical context – which includes but goes beyond the institutional level, and further involves his interaction with his supervisors and the gatekeepers of his target journals. On these latter two accounts, the notion of LPP and the social constructionist perspective on research writing can provide a useful theoretical lens.

According to Lave and Wenger’s (1991) notion of LPP, a novice is a legitimate and peripheral participant seeking fuller participation in a “community of practice” (CoP). Apart from its social nature, the LPP of a novice has political implications, due to two built-in features of LPP. On the one hand, peripherality is an empowering position and it is enabled by legitimacy which is to be granted by oldtimers (Lave and Wenger, 1991, Wenger, 1998). Studies featuring student-supervisor partnerships in academic literacy activities have illustrated this, by showing to what extent a novice’s LPP is successful (in the sense of achieving increasing enculturation, or fuller participation, in the target CoP) often depends on whether the oldtimers are willing/able to provide learning resources or explicit teaching to the novice (Belcher, 1994, Blakeslee, 1997, Cho, 2004, Dong, 1996). On the other hand, the power inequity is still an inherent feature of a CoP, with the disparity between oldtimers and novices in terms of expertise and authority. Thus, supervisors, apart from journal reviewers, can suggest changes to novice scholars’ texts and guide their norm-developing learning process (Gosden, 1995), while novices, with their conviction in the supervisors’ expertise and authority, tend to try to thoroughly incorporate the latter’s feedback, to the extent that the authorship/ownership of the final text can be blurred (Prior, 1994, Prior, 1995).

From a social constructionist perspective, scholarly texts are composed in anticipation of or in light of the reactions and criticisms from the intended readership, often the gatekeepers (the editors and referees) of a target journal above all (Berkenkotter and Huckin, 1995, Flowerdew, 2000, Myers, 1985). Such a social constructionist view not only points to the social dimension of research writing, but its political dimension as well, for the author–gatekeeper interaction is hinged upon a power inequity between the two. Myers (1985, p. 595) attributed a tension inherent in the power inequity to the conflict over novelty claim, the crux of all research writing: “On the one hand, the researcher tries to show that he or she deserves credit for something new, while, on the other, the editors and reviewers try to relate the claim to the body of knowledge produced by the community”. Yet apart from the tension resulting from arguments over novelty claim, the author–gatekeeper tension could also result from the different ideological orientations of the two, as indicated in Flowerdew’s (2000) study of a Hong Kong scholar’s publication process and Morgan’s (1997) report of his own publication experience. Since gatekeepers have to make judgements on the basis of their own research background and expertise, they could also impose their allegiances and presumptions in the revision process. Authors’ attitude to this could be more or less strongly accommodationist in their desire to get published (Berkenkotter and Huckin, 1995, Flowerdew, 2000); or, where the gatekeepers’ criticisms point to the rejection of a manuscript, the negotiation between gatekeepers and authors could take the form of resistance on the part of the latter (Gosden, 2001, Myers, 1985).

Previous studies that explored writing for scholarly publication have typically involved NNSE scholars in the disciplines of humanities/social sciences, seeking publication in internationally-refereed Centre journals from their geographical location in the Centre (e.g., Cho, 2004, Liu, 2005), or on the Periphery (Canagarajah, 2003, Casanave, 1998, Flowerdew, 2000). From these studies a number of power-infused themes have emerged: the scholars feeling thwarted by their NNSE status; their negotiating entry to the target Centre community, prominently by joining the Centre-led disciplinary “conversation” and by accommodating the criticisms/feedback of the gatekeepers of target journals; and their engaging in co-authorship with native English speaker (NES) Centre scholars for facilitating entry to the Centre community. In the present study, the student writer was first-authoring a paper in a science discipline (physics), in co-authorship with his two NNSE supervisors. The student writer was in the role of a novice scholar in a non-Anglophone country on the Periphery, bidding for journals in the Centre.