| | Referential aspects | Structural aspects |
| | A challenging task | Focus: the writing process
Aspects derived are as follows:
(i) Easier in Swedish but necessary in English
(ii) English being the scientific default scientific language; common language of communication
(iii) Various ways of thinking, saying, knowing, and doing cross cultures that is reflected in language and writing
(iv) To produce a concise and clear text being an arduous but creative process that takes time
(v) Each language and countries with the same language making assumptions, for example, use of abbreviations (NHS in UK based literature)
(vi) Drafts often in “Swenglish” (combined Swedish and English)
(vii) Writing in English being tiring and hard; native English speakers not understanding how difficult it is for non-English speakers
(viii) The process can also be rewarding, evoking feelings of pride, enjoyment, and achievement
(ix) Need for prolonged periods of dedicated writing time (English immersion)
(x) The process being hindered by fragmented time
(xi) Research and writing time competing with teaching and administrative responsibilities; the latter are tangible and more readily schedulable, whereas research and writing time is amorphous and absorbed
(xii) Need for administration support to protect research and writing time comparable to classes and meetings, for example, organize teaching schedules where possible to maximize blocks of time for research and writing
(xiii) Supervisors perceiving that they have little voice in scheduling
(xiv) Supervisors themselves could do more to schedule protected research and writing time rather than relegating writing in particular to evenings and weekends
(xv) Creative (esthetic) process and rewarding in the end; disseminating one’s work; potential for networking and contacts in the field
(xvi) Intrinsically gratifying to have actually succeeded in achieving a publication when writing in non-one’s native language |
| | An academic responsibility | Focus: scientific writing in English is a necessity
Aspects derived are as follows:
(i) “Publish or perish” scientific culture
(ii) English being the language of science
(iii) An academic necessity for establishing international contacts as well as presenting research results
(iv) Having proficiency in scientific writing in English being an unspoken expectation of being international researchers
(v) Making a difference requiring disseminating work in English
(vi) Research and writing being academic expectations, yet they receive less priority in terms of time allocation which is mostly allocated for teaching and service responsibilities (committee work)
(vii) Research and writing need to be better integrated into the institutional reward structure |
| | A “disadvantageous” struggle | Focus: disadvantages of being a nonnative English speaker
Aspects derived are as follows:
(i) Swedish journals being few; even if they exist in field, they do not have a far reach, are less likely to be indexed, and do not have the impact factors of English journals
(ii) The Swedish language is particularly limited in the scientific community, even more limited than languages such as French and German that have traditionally broader scientific reach
(iii) Being ridiculed by reviewers
(iv) Having to overly explain circumstances and conditions
(v) Being less familiar with other writing traditions, cultures, or systems
(vi) Challenges of being able to achieve nuanced English, meanings, concepts, structure, and flow of writing the manuscript text
(vii) Even professional proofreaders are often unfamiliar with scientific concepts
(viii) Services of proof reading company commissioned by universities can be poor (too instrumental approach to translation)
(ix) Hesitant to share English language limitations with colleagues; English proficiency is assumed to be a “given”
(x) Writing in English is something that has to be done; do not question it
(xi) Nonnative English speakers (reviewers) do not appreciate how difficult it is for a nonnative English speaker to write in English |
| | Need to master the written English language | Focus: facilitating a culture of English communication in academia
Aspects derived are as follows:
(i) Language challenges including grammar, punctuation (hyphenation and comma usage); few words in English compared with Swedish; nuances; nuances in English challenging; word choice; sentence structure; structuring an argument; UK versus US spelling; and conceptualization being distinct
(ii) Learning by doing, seminars in English, guest native English-speaking teachers, peer support, connections between teaching and writing, handbooks, proofreaders, being in international environments/setting/research programs
(iii) Creating on-going English-speaking environment within departments with series of native English-speaking guest researchers so English becomes more spontaneous and less conscious effort
(iv) Requiring teaching in English (teaching in English makes it easier to write and communicate in English)
(v) Having a climate that allows for errors
(vi) Limitation of resources for professional proofreaders
(vii) Professional proofreaders can be limited; need to develop a partnership with them; stay with the same person
(viii) Need for native English-speaking proofreaders in supervisors’ fields who can nurture a relationship and understands the field; stay with that person
(ix) Need for experiences abroad in English-speaking academic cultures (study leaves; visits) particularly early in graduate education and career
(x) Stimulating an English-speaking (spoken and written) culture by structuring regular (daily or weekly) English-speaking seminars, research meetings, journal clubs, and scientific writing groups including the challenges of writing as well as issues related to technical scientific writing in English; preference for 1 : 1 feedback and small group; courses may have benefit; writing seminars (content and style); see various styles among native English speakers
(xi) International collaborations are increasingly encouraged; making use of these for structured focus on English discourse and interaction (spoken and written)
(xii) English improving with increased exposure, even limited exposure, for example, a conference in an English-speaking country
(xiii) Need for opportunities for “quality” of feedback (rather than nonconstructive feedback, ridicule, and sarcasm)
(xiv) Dilemma that even when writing is proofed by a native English-speaking colleague, the reviewers still comment on the quality of the language |
|
|
