Learning to write for publication in STEM doctorates

Over the past three decades, a growing body of ethnographic case studies has sought to describe the teaching and learning of writing for research publication in STEM disciplines, combining interviews and observations of writing-focused supervision meetings with the collection of research article drafts into thick descriptions of the practices and challenges faced by doctoral students and their supervisor (sometimes called ‘advisor’ in North American settings). While these existing studies share a similar interest in student-supervisor co-authoring practices as a site for disciplinary apprenticeship and enculturation, they differ considerably in their disciplinary and geographic context, focal points of analysis and conclusions. Taking an interpretive approach to qualitative synthesis, the present review brings together twenty-one such ethnographic accounts in order to tease out shared findings as well as to critically explore differences between studies. To this end, the studies are articulated along two complementary dimensions: firstly, the studies trace how doctoral students in STEM disciplines struggle to adapt their existing reading and writing practices to the new purposes and audiences of a research article. Secondly, the studies portray varied facets of the evolving and often complex student-supervisor relationship, characterized by unfolding changes in the roles these participants assign to themselves and each other. In light of the described practices and challenges, the review then turns to the ongoing debate on whether situated learning to write for publication in STEM disciplines can be considered a writing pedagogy. Finally, some remaining gaps in our knowledge base are suggested as fertile ground for further ethnographic studies of doctoral writing in STEM disciplines.