An Exploration of the Scientific Writing Experience of Nonnative English-Speaking Doctoral Supervisors and Students Using a Phenomenographic Approach

Table 4

Nonnative English-speaking doctoral students’ phenomenographic (referential and structural) aspects related to the experience of scientific writing in English based on a semistructured focus group discussion.

Referential aspects	Structural aspects
A struggle to master scientific writing in English	Focus: the writing process; Aspects derived are as follows: (i) Differences between native language and English with respect to syntactical structure; (ii) Taking twice as long to write in English as in native language; (iii) Need for writing strategies; (iv) Need for more opportunities to practice and improve English; (v) Various perspectives of difference journal styles and formats adding to the challenges; considering journal fit; (vi) English being a struggle but there is enjoyment of learning more through the writing experience; (vii) Moving between two languages enhancing understanding of one’s area; (viii) Struggling with argument development; finding appropriate words; (ix) English being a more specific language than Swedish (use of a few words versus several in Swedish); (x) Challenges of no direct translation; (xi) Challenges of writing quantitative research findings versus qualitative research findings; learning the differences; need for richness of language particularly for writing qualitative research results; (xii) Danger of skipping something important because of lack of words to describe it (“feels like killing your darling”); (xiii) Can be so preoccupied with structure that it interferes with writing what one wants and needs to say; then one loses momentum and motivation (leads to frustration); (xiv) Google translator having uses but also failing to capture nuances; (xv) Even when supervisor agrees that manuscript can be submitted, students may believe it is not ready to go as students have too high expectations of themselves; concerned what the reviewers will say, and fear that they will put the student “down”
Need to focus on the goal	Focus: completion of the final product (the article); Aspects derived are as follows: (i) Working locally but thinking globally; (ii) Focusing on the work’s being read and used by researchers internationally (bidirectional); (iii) Articles in English having greater reach; (iv) Awareness of the scientific structure; (v) Need to establish contacts with other researchers; (vi) Effective sharing may lead to fruitful collaborations and networking; (vii) Need to address practical considerations such as varying journal styles and formats; reformatting being time consuming, takeing away time from scientific writing (journals and authors would benefit from same styles and formats); (viii) Fearful to edit what a proofreader has suggested, lack of student’s confidence to edit a proofreader for fear of article rejection; (ix) Lack of resources to use a proofreader; (x) Some potential value of professional proofreading companies; best if proofreaders is a native English speaker and familiar with the content area and its vocabulary
Need for writing guidance and assistance	Focus: supportive strategies to maximize publishing success; Aspects derived are as follows: (i) Formal instruction in the form of courses and workshops would be beneficial in writing compelling arguments and expressing ideas concisely (beyond journals’ guidelines and instructions for authors); (ii) Favoring receiving help from supervisors who have considerable publishing experience and peer support mostly in the form of “time” to give constructive feedback and explanations for edits so that the graduate student can learn to effectively self-edit (built in expectations within the supervisor-student relationship); (iii) Feedback being needed at the global level in terms of argument construction and tightness of the work, as well as the microlevel of grammar, composition, and style; (iv) Ph.D. seminars can be helpful in articulating logical ideas in English and defending positions; (v) The iterative process of improving English written communication feels “like a bird trying to fly”; (vi) Need for a logical strategy or systematic process for clear writing and achieving flow, for example, think and write in Swedish and translate into English; think and write in English from the start; and write in a combination of languages just to get something down and keep moving; (vii) Uncertainty about “flow” and how to achieve “flow”; this is challenging when being on the forefront of new knowledge; (viii) For some, starting in English leads to a simplistic result; unable to follow up with sentences of deeper meaning; (ix) Representative published articles in prestigious journals were viewed as excellent source of learning how to frame arguments and express ideas; (x) Self-help guides to scientific writing can be helpful, for example, Creslow; some advice includes “just start writing” but feedback is necessary, for example, “why this and not that,” so students avoid making the same mistakes in the future
A challenging on-going learning process	Focus: the learning process; Aspects derived are as follows: (i) To make written English feel like their own; need skills to overcome barriers such as insecurity and inexperience; (ii) Various languages having distinct writing traditions (arrive at the important point at the end of the sentence or paragraph, rather than the important point being upfront); (iii) Suggestion of sex differences in writing, specifically that men may be more to the point versus women’s speech characteristics are more nuanced; (iv) Language determining word sequencing; need to relearn this for English; (v) Continuing to read extensively in English; reading informing writing; (vi) Frequent opportunities for English immersion (e.g., several-day trip by one participant to an English-speaking country, even on the plane already thinking and writing more clearly in English; this window and receptiveness to English language persisted throughout the trip); constant exposure to English and English speakers improving the participants English even over a short timeframe; on return to Sweden the “window closed”; (vii) Need for ongoing seminars in English or teaching opportunities in English so students are always having to use the language and maintain fluency; (viii) Before attending an English lecture or seminar, it can help to “warm up” by listening to English just beforehand (the English warm-up)