L2 doctoral students’ experiences in thesis writing in an English-medium university in New Zealand

Journal of English for Academic Purposes 41 (2019) 100779

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of English for Academic Purposes journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap

L2 doctoral students’ experiences in thesis writing in an English-medium university in New Zealand Linlin Xu a, b, Lawrence Jun Zhang b, * a b

School of Foreign Languages, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China Faculty of Education and Social Work, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 12 March 2018 Received in revised form 12 August 2019 Accepted 19 August 2019 Available online 21 August 2019

Drawing upon Bakhtin's (1981) theory of dialogism, this study explores how two Chinese international doctoral students reflect upon their experiences of voice evolvement in thesis writing under the influences of their epistemological development in New Zealand. Through Reinharz's (1997) framework of self, we scrutinise each participant's data from their first PhD thesis draft, a retrospective written report, and two rounds of semistructured interviews. Results reveal that, by interacting with others (e.g., supervisors, theorists) in the context where the thesis is produced, the participants' epistemology has developed. This epistemological development itself is the process in which students forge their own philosophical views in relation to knowledge and knowing as individual researchers and members of an academic community with shared disciplinary attributes. The philosophical views further inform their writers' voice as the representation of their individual and social selves that are embodied in thesis writing. Results also indicate that Chinese international doctoral students bring valuable cultural assets for potential intercultural communication between Chinese and Anglophone disciplinary scholarships. For these students who write their theses in English as a second or additional language (L2), such interchanges create a space for them to (re)examine the different ideologies that promote their learning. © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: Epistemological development Evolvement Interaction Self Thesis writing Voice

1. Introduction Drawing upon Bakhtin's (1981) theory of dialogism, we report on how two L2 international doctoral students (Chinese) as our case participants reflected upon their experiences in voice evolvement in thesis writing induced by their epistemological development. We adopted Reinharz's (1997) framework of self to further approach and interpret the students' experiences in their development of epistemology and voice. The concept of voice has become central to the study of written discourse and has been researched extensively in recent decades in the field of the second language (L2) writing (Ivani
c & Camps, 2001; Matsuda, 2001; Starfield, 2015). Owing to its heterogeneous nature, voice has been ascribed a broad range of meanings from various perspectives: The authorial visibility from an expressionist or individualistic view (Elbow, 1994), stance and engagement from an interactional systemic-functional

* Corresponding author. Faculty of Education and Social Work, School of Curriculum and Pedagogy, University of Auckland, Private Bag, 92601, Symonds Street, Auckland, 1150, New Zealand. E-mail address: [email protected] (L.J. Zhang). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100779 1475-1585/© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

2

L. Xu, L.J. Zhang / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 41 (2019) 100779

linguistics perspective (Hyland, 2008), simultaneously personal and social foci from the situated dialogic point of view (Prior, 2001), and the amalgamative effect of using available textual and non-textual features from social-constructivist epistemology (Matsuda, 2015). Among the studies into writers' voice in academic writing, many scholars attempt to pin down the discursive and nondiscursive features of writers' voice under the influences of certain variations, such as discipline, genre, language, and culture (Fløttum, 2012; Fløttum, Dahl, & Kinn, 2006; Hyland, 2008; Ivani
c & Camps, 2001; Matsuda, 2001; Silver, 2012; Stock & Eik-Nes, 2016). Surprisingly, few studies have explored the latent variable of writers’ epistemology, particularly with regard to L2 international students pursuing their doctorate in English-medium universities overseas and writing a thesis in English. Why do we need to know L2 international doctoral students' writer voice in thesis writing and its relations to their epistemology? Writing a doctoral thesis in a second or additional language (L2) presents unique challenges, particularly for L2 international doctoral students (Shen, Carter, & Zhang, 2019), as it involves major identity transformations and negotiations (Xu & Hu, 2019); most often, the students struggle to find and project their voice in a thesis (Starfield & Paltridge, 2018). Given the intricacies and the scarcity of research on this matter, the Journal of Second Language Writing published a special issue in 2018, addressing “the complexities of identity, voice, and agency” in thesis and dissertation writing (Starfield & Paltridge, 2018, p. 2). Scholars discussed this topic from various angles, for instance, supervisors' perspectives on their readers' perceptions of the students' authorial voice (Morton & Storch, 2019), students' perspectives on their challenges in developing a ~es, Cotterall, & Mideros, 2019), and the students' and supervisors' uneasy performance of scholarly voice (de Magalha  (2019) pointed out, we should see these studies expertise in doctoral supervision and thesis writing (Casanave, 2019). As Pare as a call for action: “there are educational, ethical, rhetorical, epistemological, economic, and psychological problems created by the PhD, and they need solutions” (p. 2). Given the internationalisation of higher education and the large numbers of Chinese students pursuing their PhD studies in English-medium universities overseas, there should have been studies on these students’ experiences in their doctoral journey, especially how they represented their voice in their thesis writing. Unfortunately, our search yielded extremely limited literature on this area of research focus. Therefore, in this study, we made an attempt to fill the research gap; we did so by examining their voice relating to epistemological dimensions. Epistemology is of significance in informing doctoral students' choice of theoretical framework, research questions and methodology, as well as their writers' voice (Glesne, 2016; Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2011). It is defined as the “philosophical beliefs about the nature of knowledge” (Glesne, 2016, p. 6), which asks questions of “how do I know the world? What is the relationship between the inquirer and the known?” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p. 157). Epistemology shapes disciplinary voice, because discipline is much determined by epistemological categories (Becher & Trowler, 2001; Hyland, 2012). In addition, writers' voice, for instance, the proscribing or promoting of the first person singular I, symbolises a whole epistemology relating to the writer's positioning with the knowledge and knowledge production (Cameron, 2012). Bearing the importance of the epistemology to voice construction, Matsuda (2015) calls for studies into different conceptions of voice along the epistemological continuum. Doctoral students are likely to develop their epistemology due to the transformative nature of the doctorate and the writing process (Starfield & Paltridge, 2018). Nevertheless, the development of epistemology and changing conceptions of , 2019). Often they have already voice can be a more distinctive site of struggle for L2 international doctoral students (Pare developed their own voice as professional/academic writers in their native language (Hirvela & Belcher, 2001) or in English as a foreign/second or additional language in their home country. The established voice may differ from that in the mainstream academic written discourse in the foreign context, due to the divergent, even conflicting epistemologies (Zhang, 2016). Another possibility is that the students are offered the opportunity to choose from a range of epistemologies and corresponding voices in thesis writing. Under these circumstances, we are curious about whether the L2 international doctoral students strive to conform to the current disciplinary expectations of the voice in thesis writing (Zhang, 2013, 2016), or vigorously engage with the different norms and make informed choices to construct their own voice, or act somewhere inbetween. 2. Theoretical background 2.1. Conceptualisation of voice Being “a devilishly difficult concept to define” (Atkinson, 2001, p. 110), voice is one of the most contested and ambiguous constructs (Guinda & Hyland, 2012; Tardy, 2012). We discuss this construct based on a broad assumption that voice is writers' self-representation. As will become clear in the sections below, this concept has evolved considerably with respect to the individual and/or social dimensions of the writers’ self, and their relations with others from individualistic, social, and dialogic perspectives. The early conceptualisation of voice as writers' self-representation stems largely from the individualistic view, seeing voice as an expression of authentic self (Bowden, 1995; Stewart, 1969). Writers develop this authentic voice via unique and recognisable textual features to form their personal writing style (Elbow, 2007). Similar to one's clothes and hairstyle, this individual aspect of voice, working as a personal imprint within a text, identifies the writer and distinguishes one writer from another (Tardy, 2012). As Matsuda (2015) argues, this conception of voice assumes that “the writer's identity existed in the material reality external to discourse, and that identity was being projected through discourse” (p. 142). Thus, there is no impersonal writing in that writers convey messages about themselves through making choices about lexical, syntactic,

L. Xu, L.J. Zhang / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 41 (2019) 100779

3

semantic, visual and material aspects of writing (Ivani
c, 1998; Ivani
c & Camps, 2001). This individualistic perspective on voice, in sum, emphasises the sense of self e the writer's identity, as a unique individual. Scholars have acknowledged that writers' voice is socially constructed (Hyland, 2008; Ivani
c, 1998; Tardy, 2012). This is because the selves or identities represented in academic writing are social and multiple (Ivani
c, 1998; Tardy, 2012). The social nature of voice highlights the writers’ relationships with the social context e how writers position themselves in relation to the community and the discipline (Guinda & Hyland, 2012; Hyland, 2008; Prior, 2001; Tardy, 2012). The discourse that writers choose aligns them with one discipline rather than another. Disciplines differentiate themselves with particular discursive cultures, which help shape discipline-distinctive voice, as Berge (2007) argues: “Science” is the text culture consisting of different discourse communities with different communicative goals, different textual traditions, different genres, different truth-concepts, different types of interaction with society. (p. 55) Academic writers thus have to confine their writing to disciplinary norms and conventions by choosing particular discursive features. In other words, academic writers cannot construct their self-representation (or voice) from an infinite range of possibilities, but from culturally available resources (Hyland, 2008; Ivani
c & Camps, 2001; Matsuda, 2001; Tardy, 2012). Matsuda (2001) defines the voice as “the amalgamative effect of the use of discursive and non-discursive features that language users choose, deliberately or otherwise, from socially available yet ever-changing repertoire” (p. 40). The metaphor of repertoire illustrates the inter-relationship between the individual and social aspects of voice as a coconstruction within a boundary, which resonates with the dialogic view of voice. From the dialogic perspective, voice, as the writers' self-representation, develops out of the interactions between the individual and social aspects of selves and between the writers and the readers. The dialogic notion of voice emphasises the dialectical unity of the individual and social aspects, breaking the false dichotomy of the two (Ivani
c & Camps, 2001; Matsuda, 2001, 2015; Prior, 2001). According to Tardy (2012), “voice is neither controlled solely by writers nor determined by the social worlds within which they write e it is subject to and a result of both writer and social context” (p. 39). In addition, the dialogic view of voice attaches importance to the writer-reader interactions, such as the writers' engagement with the readers (Hyland, 2008), the readers' interpretation of the writers’ voice (Tardy & Matsuda, 2009). By writing with certain discursive features available from the “community-sensitive linguistic resources” (Hyland, 2008, p. 20), writers convey themselves, their ideas, and the ways in which they engage with readers from the same discipline (Guinda & Hyland, 2012). Researchers have put forward several conceptual frameworks to analyse writers' voice and identity, among which Ivani
c's (1998) proposal of “four aspects of ‘writer identity’” (p. 23) is particularly influential. This overarching framework illustrates the ways in which the writer's multiple identities interact and are embodied in the written text as different aspects of voice. The first aspect of writer identity, the autobiographic self, is shaped by people's “prior social and discoursal history”, which “constitutes their current way of being” (p. 24) and “is unique to each individual” (p. 29). The second aspect, the discoursal self, refers to the impression that is constructed and conveyed through written discourse, which Ivani
c (1998) and Matsuda (2001, 2015) refer to as voice. Closely related to the discoursal self, the self as author “concerns the writer's ‘voice’ in the sense of the writer's position, opinions and beliefs” (Ivani
c, 1998, p. 26). The above three selves, associated with the actual writer writing the texts, “are shaped by and shape the ‘possibilities for self-hood’” (p. 24), which is concerned with the “prototypical possibilities for self-hood which are available to writers in the social context of writing” (p. 27). In other words, the social context of writing provides an inventory or a repertoire (Matsuda, 2015; Tardy, 2012) of identity options and discursive resources that allow people to choose how to (re)construct their writer identity. The possibilities for self-hood reverberate the focus of this study e the evolvement of students' voice in thesis writing, emphasising the dynamic nature of writer identity. Taking these aspects into consideration, we agree that voice is “an integral aspect of self-representation in academic discourse” (Hyland, 2008, p. 20), representing the writers' multiple selves, their ideas and the relationships with the readers within and beyond the discipline. It is individual, social, multiple, distinctive, and constantly in a state of movement. The question that needs to be addressed in our study is whether Chinese international doctoral students’ voice in thesis writing share these characteristics or present certain unique traits; or how these characteristics of voice have been embodied in their thesis writing when they have to write it in English as a second/foreign or additional language. 2.2. Dialogic perspective on interactions and self We drew upon Bakhtin's (1981) dialogic perspective with a focus on interactions with others, which is the soul of Bakhtin's theory of dialogism, traversing most of his theoretical constructs (e.g., double-voicedness, heteroglossia, polyphony, etc.). The dialogic perspective features interactions with others, because being “an almost universal phenomenon” (Bakhtin, 1984, p. 40), dialogic relationships are established on interactions between at least two people (Bakhtin, 1984; Shields, 2007). As Bakhtin (1981) argues, “one's own discourse is gradually and slowly wrought out of others' words that have been acknowledged and assimilated” (p. 345). Informed by this dialogic perspective, we believe that the construction and evolvement of students' voice in thesis writing are achieved in the process of their interactions with others (e.g., supervisors, research participants, among others) in the context where the thesis is produced. Within the dialogic perspective, we developed Reinharz's (1997) broad framework of self and explored the students' voice in thesis writing from three aspects of writer identity: brought selves, created selves, and evolving selves. Reinharz's (1997) framework of self is a theory that deconstructs a researcher's identity into a variety of selves in relation to time (e.g., past, present and future) and space (e.g., the research field). According to Reinharz (1997), “we both bring the self to the field and

4

L. Xu, L.J. Zhang / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 41 (2019) 100779

create the self in the field” (p. 3). The brought selves refer to the identities shaped by the researcher's prior life-experience. When reflecting on her own study conducted during 1979 and 1980, Reinharz (1997) identified her own brought selves as “being a mother, having relatives, being a woman, being a wife, being an American, being a Jew, being an academic …” (p. 5). To some extent, the brought self is similar to Ivani
c's (1998) “autobiographical self”, which is “associated with a writer's sense of their roots, of where they are coming from”, and is “socially constructed and constantly changing” (p. 24). The created self, on the other hand, is “a product of the norms of the social setting and the ways in which the ‘research subjects’ interact with the selves the researcher brings to the field” (Reinharz, 1997, p. 3). The created self is thus socially constructed through the researcher's brought selves interacting with the research subjects conforming to the norms of a social setting. Expanding this point further, we argue that thesis writing is a process of critically and analytically converting the research journey into communicable and presentable written work, which provides a space where the doctoral student's brought selves interact with others. Such incessant, open, accumulative, multifaceted, and multi-fold interactions not only create new selves, but also destabilise both the brought and created selves, making the evolvement of selves possible. In this manner, interactions orchestrate the dynamics among the three aspects of the researcher's (student's) identity, bringing the researcher's (student's) past, present and future into the research field. Locating our study in Bakhtin's (1981) dialogic perspective and Reinharz's (1997) framework of self, we were interested in how students interacted with others, particularly, the interactive dynamics among the students' different selves and how these interactions contributed to the students' epistemological development and the evolvement of their voice in thesis writing. Taking these complexities and subtleties into consideration, we addressed the following research questions: (1) What was the trajectory of the students' epistemological development in relation to the interactive dynamics among their different selves? (2) How did the students' voice evolve in thesis writing in concomitant to their epistemological development? 3. Method 3.1. A case study approach We used a case study approach to understand the “complexity and dynamic nature” of the Chinese international doctoral students' experience of development (Johnson, 1992, p. 84). By focusing on two cases, we hoped to capture the participants' individualised perspectives and experiences, as well as their shared cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Moreover, this study drew largely on two participants' reflections upon their epistemological development and correspondingly their development of voice in thesis writing in English as a second or additional language in a research-intensive university in New Zealand. By reflection, we intended to have the participants “purposefully engage in deliberation, pondering, or rumination over ideas, circumstances, or experiences” (Alexander, 2017, p. 309) and turn the experience into learning (Boud, Keogh, & Walker, 2013). We also included some discursive features of the changing voice in thesis writing as our data to triangulate the participants’ reflections on their voice development. 3.2. Context and participants This research is part of a larger study that examined L2 doctoral students' thesis writing in a New Zealand researchintensive university. While six doctoral students were recruited as participants in the larger study after they responded to our invitation emails and agreed to participate, we selected Zhou and Wang (pseudonyms) as two cases in this segment of the research project, as reported in this paper. This was because these two participants reported and wrote, in the methodology chapter of their first full thesis draft, their reflections upon their epistemological development and its influences on their thesis writing, particularly in relation to their voice evolvement. Their deep reflections revealed the complexities and subtleties of this struggling process, which resonated with some other Chinese learners' experience (Law et al., 2009). Therefore, we would like to address this issue and draw supervisors and L2 doctoral students' attention to the potential influences or possibilities that such epistemological development brings to doctoral students’ voice evolvement in thesis writing. As shown in Table 1, both participants were female and born in the 1980s. They had a similar education history that they both obtained their BA (English) in Mainland China, MA (taught) in the UK and are now pursuing their PhD in the Faculty of Education in the same university in New Zealand. Zhou studied in the discipline of Sociology of Sport, while Wang sat herself in an interdisciplinary area of Applied Linguistics and Education. Moreover, they were generally at the same stage of PhD candidature and had obtained a similar amount of pre-PhD academic English writing experience, including writing the course papers, assignments and dissertations during their BA and MA studies. 3.3. Stages of data collection and analysis We collected our data in five stages, following the method of a sequential qualitative study, where the findings from the previous stage informed the next stage. The five-stage data consisted of the participants’ written reflections (their Methodology chapters of the first full thesis draft and their retrospective written reports), their oral reflections (two rounds of

L. Xu, L.J. Zhang / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 41 (2019) 100779

5

Table 1 Participant profiles. Name

Zhou

Gender Age Education

Female 29 BA in English: Mainland China MA (taught) in Sociology of Sport: UK

Wang

Female 36 BA in English: Mainland China MA (taught) in Intercultural Business Communication: UK PhD in Education (Sociology of Sport): NZ PhD in Education (Applied Linguistics and Education): NZ Stage of PhD candidature Early fourth-year Mid-fourth-year Pre-PhD experience of academic English Course papers, assignments and dissertations during Course papers, assignments and dissertations during writing BA and MA BA and MA

semi-structured interviews with each participant), as well as some written evidence of the reflections (other chapters of the first full thesis drafts). The data analysis followed a qualitative interpretive approach that acknowledged the situated and coconstructed nature of accounts, as well as conflicts, tensions, struggles, and subjectivities (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Specifically, the processes of data collection and analysis were as follows: Collecting the Methodology chapters of the first full thesis drafts. It is the place where the participants wrote about their reflections upon their epistemological development and its influences. The data analysis at this stage aimed to extract the trajectory of the epistemological development from the reflections. We used two supplementary coding schemes, locating words and phrases relating to (1) epistemology, such as philosophical assumptions, worldviews, research paradigms and their subcategories; and (2) development, such as change, shift(ing), transition, transform(ation), as well as different types of epistemologies mentioned. These findings functioned as the point of departure for the interviews in the next stage. Conducting the first-round semi-structured interviews. Through interviews, we gained the participants' oral reflections to (1) validate and complement the findings on the participants’ epistemological development retrieved from the written reflections in the previous stage, and (2) reveal specifically the influences the development brought to the discursive and nondiscursive features of their voice in thesis writing. Typical interview questions were, for instance, “How did the epistemological development influence your voice in thesis writing?” (For full interview questions please refer to Appendix 1). There were two levels of coding to analyse the development of epistemology and voice in different stages. We used the stages of doctoral candidature in the first instance for coding, e.g., the epistemology the participants held before, at the early and current late stages of their PhD candidature and their corresponding voice in writing were all carefully given a code. The second level coding involved recognising their predominant “brought selves”, early “created selves”, and “evolving selves” under certain epistemology at each stage. Collecting other chapters of the first full thesis drafts. We used the textual data as the evidence to triangulate and enrich the interview data, particularly the participants' reflections on the changing discursive features of their voice in writing. We paid special attention to one chapter on findings and discussions (randomly chosen). Both participants mixed findings and discussions together and both had four “findings and discussions” chapters, which according to the participants were rich in voice. The analysis of the textual data started with sorting out extracts of the participants’ writing as written evidence for their self-reported discursive features of the voice in thesis writing. For instance, one participant mentioned in the interview that she wrote her thesis with more detailed and subjective description with quantified adjectives. Our analysis was to locate the extract(s) in this chapter to verify this discursive feature. Collecting retrospective written reports. Based on the phased findings, we also strived to gain a holistic understanding of the issue. Therefore, we requested from the two participants a retrospective written report to reflect on their doctoral journey with the two research questions being the prompts as well as analytical themes. Conducting the second-round semi-structured interviews. We intended to clarify and further probe into the data already collected in the previous four stages. Typical interview questions were, for instance, “You mentioned … in the first interview/ retrospective written report, can you please illustrate this point and give an example?” (For full interview questions please refer to Appendix 2). We adopted the same coding schemes as in the first-round interviews. The first author conducted the semi-structured interviews at the participants’ convenience and in the languages of their choice, which involved English and Chinese. She also transcribed all the interviews verbatim and translated the Chinese part into English. The second author checked the English translation. Both authors were fluent in Mandarin and English and had a PhD in Applied Linguistics. Each interview lasted for approximately 60 min in the form of interactive conversations, in which the participants described and reflected on their experiences relevant to the focus of the interview. 3.4. Reflexivity and trustworthiness We approached reflexivity through examining our subjectivity, positioning, and trustworthiness (Glesen, 2016). As researchers who also went through the experience of being Chinese international doctoral students, we are peers to our participants and share with them the same cultural and linguistic backgrounds, as well as the similar transformative doctoral journey overseas. In spite of this insider's element, or the emic perspective, we acknowledged the uniqueness of individual

6

L. Xu, L.J. Zhang / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 41 (2019) 100779

experience that contributed to one's distinctive understanding of the world and the ways of interpreting the data. Therefore, we took a co-constructive perspective, positioning the participants and ourselves as co-researchers to bring up diverse perceptions. We applied several trustworthiness strategies to enhance the rigour of the co-construction. One typical example is that during the data collection, especially the interviews, we only had a very few open questions as the guidance and let the participants control what and how they wanted to say about their experiences. After each stage of data collection, we, the two researchers, analysed the same data independently and reached an agreement on the findings by comparing and discussing the results (Patton, 2002). Then the participants received the phased findings for member checking (Shenton, 2004). For example, Zhou suggested an alternative extract of her text for us to analyse her critical voice after examining the results of the third stage analysis. Only after we validated and refined the findings upon the participants' comments could the next stage data collection proceed. 4. Findings We presented the findings case by case to provide rich and coherent descriptive as well as analytical accounts of the two participants’ experiences of development in epistemology and voice in thesis writing.

4.1. The case of Zhou 4.1.1. Development in epistemology: From copying other's ideas to having own voice By using “Guba's (1990)” idea, Zhou defined epistemology as “the researchers' relation to knowledge” (Chapter on methodology). Zhou has gone through two epistemological turns so far. By quoting Zhou's own words, we conceptualised the whole process as a development from “copying ideas from other methodologists” to “having [her] own voice” (Interview 2). She reflected on her first turn as follows: I used to believe that multiple subjective realities and the nature or existence of realities were constructed and shaped by human in particular contexts. Standing on this epistemological stance, I saw myself an interpretivist … Inspired by particularly Foucault's notion of problematisation, I saw the virtue of reflecting and problematizing the seemingly “natural” situations. So I would like to incorporate the critical epistemology to identify social power structures, promote external social changes and empower the oppressed. (Retrospective written report) This reflexive account showed that Zhou had a clear understanding of what she meant to be interpretivist and critical epistemologies. Her use of the language e “multiple subjective realities”, “construct”, “social power structures”, “social changes” and “empower” e corresponded with that of many methodologists (e.g., Lincoln et al., 2011; Merriam, 1991) in describing the two epistemologies. These understandings and differentiations gave rise to Zhou's development to “incorporate the critical epistemology”. However, the development was not as linear as drawing a straight line from A to B, because Zhou did not completely reject the interpretivist epistemology, but put her feet in both interpretivist and critical camps, which caused some practical problems: I struggled to apply these two epistemologies seamlessly and coherently to my study. This may because I directly copy other people's ideas without any further thinking of having an “organic” [stressed] application to my research. (Interview 1) It took a long time for Zhou to deal with this issue, which brought in her second epistemological turn e proposing her own epistemological stance by integrating “organically” the two: After extensive reading, I found some evidence of integrating the two epistemologies, which are both the mainstream in my field. I was also impressed by some American and local PhD students who create their own theory or methodology. In my late-third year as I knew more about my field, I finally overcame my “Chinese humbleness” and developed my own epistemology: situated and embodied knowledge. I achieved this by critiquing the western dualism between body and mind and taking in the Chinese philosophy of 身心合一 [the unity of the body and the mind]. By taking this epistemology, I co-construct with the participants their experiences within the setting and produce critical, subjective, situated and embodied knowledge to empower them. (Interview 1) These narratives showed how Zhou strived to make sense of her epistemological development among multiple epistemological stances in relation to her study. She moved from holding a sole interpretivist epistemology to embracing both interpretivist and critical ones by mechanically “copying other people's ideas”. Then she moved further to advance her epistemology of situated and embodied knowledge via incorporating organically the two. This second epistemological turn stemmed from her growing disciplinary knowledge e “knew more about my field”, her applying one Chinese philosophy and overcoming the “Chinese humbleness”. The two turns suggested that Zhou's epistemological development is a complex, nonlinear and reflexive learning process, a “process of selectively assimilating the words of others” from repertoires of Chinese philosophy and Western disciplines (Bakhtin, 1981, p. 341). Meanwhile, like Zhou left off her Chinese humbleness,

L. Xu, L.J. Zhang / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 41 (2019) 100779

7

assimilating new ideas can disturb the tranquillity of one's subjective belief system, triggering a re-examination of some long held assimilated ideas. During these two turns, Zhou's created self of being a researcher has evolved. The identity of being a researcher is a self created at the time when Zhou started their PhD research project (Reinharz, 1997). By interacting with others, for instance, Guba, the methodologist, Foucault, the theorist, and her American and local PhD peers, this created self of “researcher” has evolved as to hold different epistemologies, situating herself with different relations to knowledge. Meanwhile, Zhou's brought self of being Chinese has also evolved so as to overcome her Chinese humbleness. The evolvement of the brought and created selves inevitably influenced Zhou's voice in thesis writing as the self-representation. 4.1.2. Evolvement in voice: Strong critical voice Zhou's created self of being a researcher has evolved from believing in co-constructed subjective knowledge to believing in co-constructed, critical, situated and embodied knowledge. This evolving self urged Zhou to become “more critical and reflexive” and to “make [her]self obvious in writing” (Interview 1). Therefore, instead of writing it as “an objective report, with a large amount of quotations from participants”, she now tried to write her thesis with “more critical analysis and interpretation”, “more detailed and subjective description with quantified adjectives”, and “more “I” and active voice, while intentionally reducing the use of passive voice” (Interview 1). To make her critical and reflexive authorial voice explicit, Zhou changed her voice of writing in those three ways, among which, Zhou felt projecting a strong critical voice the most challenging: I intended to tone down my critical voice. My supervisors have criticised me many times for not having a strong critical voice with too much hedging and non-assertive language. They attributed this to my Chinese humbleness. Yes, my culture doesn't appreciate confrontation, particularly with authorities. I have fought with myself for a long time and until recently, I have felt some confidence to make absolute and assertive arguments as I know my research and my area better. (Interview 2) Incorporating a critical epistemology opened up Zhou's critical voice, but the degree of criticality depended on intricate interactions among her supervisors' expectations, her Chinese cultural values and her increased disciplinary knowledge. The words “fought with myself for a long time” implied a struggling process involving clashes, resistances, negotiations and conciliations. Zhou then illustrated her critical voice by highlighting several extracts of her writing. For instance, she wrote: China's elite table tennis training intended to erase the gender-based difference in bodily techniques and styles, not by encouraging male and female players to learn from each other, but by implementing the masculine techniques among female players. (Chapter on findings and discussions) She explained criticality: “I challenge the state discourse, something most people take for granted and are even proud of” (Interview 2). She also expressed her concern about “whether the analysis is too critical to be accepted by people who read it” (Interview 2). Although Zhou's Chinese humbleness still remained, making her feel worried about whether her argument was too critical, this written piece is assertive, overt and contains no hedging, complying with Zhou's supervisors' requirement of strong critical voice. Zhou’ experience of developing strong critical voice corresponded with the idea that presenting a strong self or voice is a Western notion that can be relatively inaccessible to students from other cultures (Hirvela & Belcher, 2001). We also found evidence in Zhou's thesis of “detailed and subjective description with quantified adjectives”. For instance, she wrote in a paragraph about her participants' ideas about sport: Villa [the participant] calmly protested that … She eloquently asserted … Anita [her participant] expressed exaggeratedly … cannot be simply conceived as … is much more acceptable … (Chapter on findings and discussions) These modifiers manifested Zhou's presence as the author/researcher. As readers, we can see through those modifiers Zhou's interpretations (e.g., calmly, eloquently) and options (e.g., exaggeratedly, much more acceptable) of her participants' data. We cannot provide direct evidence for the third self-reported change in voice: the increased use of “I” and the deduction of the passive voice, as we obtained no previous writing from Zhou prior to her epistemological turns, which was also difficult to specify for being “a gradual process” (Interview 2). However, we found in the same findings and discussions chapter that Zhou used “I”, the first person pronoun, mainly in two ways. One was to communicate with readers how she organised the content and structured the writing. For example, she wrote: In the first section, I discuss …; In the second section, I use … to discuss … I then explore … (Chapter on findings and discussions) This usage of “I” to some extent corroborated with the idea of using “I” “as the architect of the essay”, who, according to Tang and John (1999), organises and outlines the material in the writing (p. S28). Furthermore, Zhao used “I” to bring her writer's point of view to the fore. Some examples were: I argue that the masculine-defined sport ethic is a limited explanation for female sport … I argue that the complex interplay of gender, ethnicity, and culture was relatively untouched … (Chapter on findings and discussions)

8

L. Xu, L.J. Zhang / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 41 (2019) 100779

By involving “the writer's conception of the ideas or knowledge claims”, this usage of “I” was in line with the idea of “originator” who “claim[s] authority and exhibit[s] some form of ownership of the content” (Tang & John, 1999, p. S29). Although we cannot witness how much more or less Zhou changed her use of the first person pronoun or passivisation, we do have a sense of how she used the “I” to “make [her]self obvious in writing” as a “critical and reflexive” researcher (Interview 1). Nevertheless, Zhou emphasised that she will apply more first person to express her ideas in revision, because her supervisors thought, “there should be more” (Interview 2). Therefore, we can expect a strengthening of the authorial presence in Zhou's thesis drafts at a later stage of her writing.

4.2. The case of Wang 4.2.1. Development in epistemology: From following suit to making an informed choice Wang understood epistemology as her “belief of and relation to the knowledge, which is embodied in [her] choice of research paradigm” (interview 1). Similar to Zhou, Wang has also experienced two epistemological turns and the first one was characterised by a shifting belief from “objective reality” to “what works” with a “flexibility between objective and subjective knowledge” (Chapter on methodology): I was made to believe that knowledge was objective and waiting for people to discover, because in China pursuing objectivity seemed to be the only scientific way of doing research. After attending a methodology course in my first year of PhD, I realised apart from this post-positivist epistemological position there were other options. My discipline [Applied Linguistics] has a long tradition of believing in objective knowledge but shows a growing emphasis on mix methods with the belief of “what works”, so I decided to follow suit and became a pragmatist. (Retrospective written report) It seems that Wang's epistemological stance has largely been determined by external elements, such as the national or disciplinary research discourse. The language e “follow suit” e suggests that rather than critically evaluating the disciplinary discourse, Wang made her decision of an epistemological shift out of her observations of how others in her field do. This ideology of “follow[ing] suit” corresponded with the Chinese collectivist culture of maintaining a harmonious interpersonal relationship by avoiding confrontations e do what most people do (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010). Later in her PhD, Wang recognised an unconscious epistemological turn in writing her thesis, which triggered her intensive and critical engagement with others’ ideas: My supervisor commented that my third data chapter read so differently from the previous two … Then we both agreed that I wrote the first two chapters within a post-positivist epistemology but the third chapter within a constructivist one … My supervisor asked me to read before making any revision. After a series of chaotic dialogues with Creswell, Denzin, Teddlie … I realised how ignorant and bold I was to recklessly locate myself in the post-positivist or pragmatic epistemology without deep thinking and knowing the counter views. This time, facing with different views, I asked myself: What makes sense to me and helps me make sense of the world and reality? (Interview 1) This quote showed how the unconscious epistemological development became conscious, which triggered Wang's reflection on her past experiences of choosing research paradigms (e.g., being ignorant and bold, reckless, without deep thinking). In a sense, Wang's shift from unconscious to conscious realisation of epistemological development prompted her critical evaluation of the disciplinary discourse, which she lacked at the beginning. Let us see how Wang answered her own evocative question: At this stage, I am still a pragmatist who believes in “what works” (Creswell, 2014), but shifting from prioritising objective realities to the subjective ones … This self-recognition is an informed personal choice … The main reason for this shift is my changing research focus from pure language e an Applied Linguistic perspective, to language, culture and pedagogy e an interdisciplinary perspective of Applied Linguistic and Education. The former favours objective approaches to discover the knowledge and the latter favours subjective ones to construct the knowledge. (Chapter on methodology) Wang's answer to her own questions showed a deep level of self-analysis. We can see that the whole journey of Wang's epistemological development was a process of gaining understandings of disciplinary knowledge and self-consciousness of her changing relations to the knowledge. She grew from “follow[ing] suit” based on superficial understanding of her field to making the “informed personal choice” out of her accumulated knowledge about her research project, her discipline(s) and herself as the researcher who tried to “make sense of the world and reality”. Her narratives also revealed a disciplinary difference in the philosophical beliefs of the researchers' relation to the knowledge. Therefore, students who conduct interdisciplinary research can envisage potential challenges of coordinating multiple, even conflicting discipline-specific epistemologies and their further impact, like the incoherent writing voice e “[the] third data chapter read so differently from the previous two”. 4.2.2. Development in voice: Struggling with balancing the voices In Wang's case, due to constant interactions with others (e.g., supervisors, people in the methodology course and methodologists, such as Creswell, Denzin, Teddlie), the brought self of being Chinese has evolved by, for example, giving up

L. Xu, L.J. Zhang / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 41 (2019) 100779

9

the Chinese value of following suit. The created self of being an Applied Linguistics researcher has also evolved to become a researcher doing interdisciplinary research within Applied Linguistics and Education. Furthermore, the created self of postpositivist researcher has evolved from believing in objective reality to believing in “what works”. Within “what works”, she further transformed from prioritising objective realities to the subjective ones. The evolving selves with the epistemological development brought to the fore Wang's voice as the researcher in the thesis, from absence to emergence, to prevalence and to a cautious balance: The voice of the researcher is kind of absent in the first two-phase study under the post-positivist epistemological orientation, where the objective third-person and passive tenses prevail to achieve the maximum objectivity and minimise the individual voice. In contrast, the rest of the chapters are mainly under the constructivist orientation, where the subjective voice of the researcher, “I”, permeates. However, I am still caught in the dilemma of balancing the two and I am trying out the “right way”. (Chapter on methodology). This excerpt explained why Wang's data chapters read differently. By residing in two disciplines, Wang wrote her thesis with two distinctive voices respectively approved by discipline-specific epistemologies. Applied Linguistics e “a conservative science-envy field” e inherits the objective mind from the science and thus follows a science model of thesis writing: “objective, distanced, logic, impersonal and passive-voiced” (Casanave, 2010, pp. 12e13). While Education, as Wang reflected earlier, generally pursues subjective knowledge and encourages an engaging, first-person writing style (Casanave, 2010). The two discipline-specific epistemologies pulled Wang's writing voice into different directions, which caught her up in a “dilemma”. To evidence those discursive features of the two voices, we firstly examined the Content of her thesis draft and found that she composed the first half of her thesis in a scientific way as Creswell (2014) described, with chapters of “Introduction, Literature review and Methodology”. In contrast, the headings of the rest chapters are more personal and subjective, such as “Feedback responses: self-reasoning”. We also examined the four data chapters, where Wang presented and discussed her findings. We found a much higher occurrence of passive voice in the first two chapters, especially when reporting the findings. Typical examples were: “It was found that …”, “It was noted that …”, “… were discovered/found”, “… was regarded/ considered as …”. Meanwhile, Wang's use of the first person pronoun differed dramatically in that there were 14 uses in the first data chapter and 53 uses in the second, while there were 210 in the third and 248 in the fourth chapter. In the third and fourth data chapter, instead of using the passive voice, Wang used the pairing of first person pronoun with past tense verbs to present the findings: “I found/identified/noticed/realised …” Wang's contrastive use of discursive features of language divided her thesis, particularly her data chapters into two parts with distinctive and incoherent voices featured by diverse epistemologies. How would Wang cope with this situation? Would she revise the thesis and make the voice consistent? Wang answered these questions by telling us what she called “a bold decision”: Rather than rewriting the thesis with a coherent voice, I decide to keep the two distinct voices. It's crazy, but we have a Chinese saying: trying is the key to success, so I want to try. I want to show people how I transformed during my PhD and in the process of writing my thesis. And I feel as a PhD student in the fourth year, I should be able to make independent even bold decision about my own work. So I go to persuade my supervisor … (Interview 1). Wang's decision of keeping the two voices was “bold” on one hand, because it pushed the disciplinary boundary of voice in thesis writing and challenged her Chinese collectivist culture of maintaining harmony and avoiding confrontation (Hofstede et al., 2010). It was not bold on the other hand, as Wang made this decision out of careful consideration, by drawing on the spirit of trying, on her understanding of the thesis as a snapshot of her social and cognitive development, and on her understanding of a late-stage PhD student as someone who knows the discipline and can make independent decisions. Keeping the two distinct voices in one thesis in fact shaped Wang's unique personal writing voice as multiple, discrete, and probably confusing, which functioned as “a kind of individual imprint on a text” (Tardy, 2012, p. 35). 5. Discussion and conclusion This study draws upon Bakhtin's (1981) theory of dialogism and Reinharz's (1997) framework of self to explore how two L2 international doctoral students (Chinese) developed their voice in thesis writing induced by their epistemological development. We discuss our findings from the aspects of how students' epistemological development influenced their voice in thesis writing, the dimensions of the development in epistemology and voice, and how students navigated their way in achieving the overall development. The two cases suggest that the evolvement of the students' voice in thesis writing largely aligns with their epistemological development. The latter is the process in which students forge their own philosophical views in relation to knowledge and knowing. For instance, Zhou developed from copying others' ideas to proposing her own epistemological stance, whereas Wang developed from following suit to making an informed choice in selecting epistemology. In the process of forging the philosophical views, the students' brought and created selves have evolved (Reinharz, 1997). The students' brought self e being a Chinese with Chinese traditional values e has evolved. In this study, Zhou suppressed her Chinese humbleness while strengthening her belief in Chinese philosophy of the unity of the body and the mind; Wang gave up her Chinese collectivist culture of following suit while standing firm on the Chinese spirit of trying. Their created self e being a researcher e has also

10

L. Xu, L.J. Zhang / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 41 (2019) 100779

evolved, as Zhou and Wang both moved towards another epistemological direction. The evolved selves spark evolvement of their representations e the voice in thesis wiring. For instance, guided by the critical epistemology, Zhou changed her voice in writing from being objective-report like to being critical and reflexive; Wang manifested her objective- and subjectiveoriented discipline-specific epistemologies with incoherent and discrete voices, featuring respectively objectivity/impersonality and subjectivity/personality. In this sense, students' written voice reflects and embodies their epistemology(ies) e their philosophical views in relation to knowledge and knowing. This is because language is always ideological in that it can “betray the ideology of its speakers” (Bakhtin, 1981, p. 429). Thus, the development of the epistemology and the voice in thesis is, in essence, the evolvement of the researchers’ different selves (Reinharz, 1997). The students' development of epistemology and their corresponding evolvement of voice exhibit individual and social dimensions, because the selves, including the brought and created ones, have evolved towards those two directions. The individual or personal attributes rest on the students' unique developmental trajectory of epistemology and voice in writing. The students' brought selves and created selves bring their past, present and imagined future to the research setting to interact with others, such as their supervisors, theorists, scholars within and across their discipline(s). This unique trajectory shapes distinctive individuality that distinguishes themselves from other researchers and is projected through written discourse as the voice (Matsuda, 2015; Tardy, 2012). For example, Zhou's critical voice of Chinese male-dominated sport is distinct regarding the degree of criticality and her epistemological position, and Wang's incoherent voices in her thesis create her personal writing style. The social dimension of the development links to the students' relationships with the discipline, more precisely, to the disciplinary acculturation, through which the students form their disciplinary identity as a legitimate member of the community (Hyland, 2012). As a member of the academic community, one's development of individual attributes is not arbitrary, but confined within the discipline periphery. For instance, both Zhou and Wang recognised the mainstream epistemology(ies) in their field(s). The discipline-specific epistemology(ies) draws the boundary of the available repertoire from which the students choose the linguistic resources to construct and present their personal voice as researchers (Hyland, 2008; Ivani
c & Camps, 2001; Matsuda, 2001, 2015; Tardy, 2012). The representation of the individual dimension of self in the thesis, is therefore, constructed by and from the general language of the discipline, in that the individuality, or the “style”, is “an individualization of the general language (in the sense of a system of general language norms)” (Bakhtin, 1981, p. 264). In addition, supervisors, as gatekeepers of the academic community, are the authoritative others (Bakhtin, 1981), together with whom the students negotiate their social relationship with the discipline. For example, Zhou tried her best to meet her supervisors' requirement of having a strong critical voice and Wang would need to persuade her supervisors to allow her to keep the incoherent voices in the thesis. By all means, the students gain their supervisors' recognition of the social self e members of the academic community in the discipline. As a key part of the disciplinary acculturation, the formation of the social self involves negotiations of voice within the disciplinary repertoire (Matsuda, 2001) e to “take on the discourse of [the] communities” (Hyland, 2008, p. 6), but not losing, at least not completely losing the writer's individuality as a researcher with their own history, culture and freedom of choice. At this point, our study suggests that rather than limited influence as Zhao (2019) recently found out, L2 writers' cultural background e especially their past e can impact their voice construction significantly, although this impact can be moderated along with the students' social interactions with the disciplinary norms. We can conclude that the individual and the social dimensions of selves and their representations in writing, their voice, are dialogically embodied through a unity of “a system of general normative forms” e the discourse of the discipline, and at the same time, through a “unity of an individual person realizing himself/[herself]” in this discourse (Bakhtin, 1981, p. 264). How did the students navigate their way of development? As the agential selves with the ability to act (Bhowmik, 2016; de Magalh~ aes et al., 2019), the students realised their development by selectively assimilating others' differentiated ideas. The students' intention of gaining membership or disciplinary acculturation (Dressen-Hammouda, 2008), set the fundamental tone of assimilation e alignment to the Anglophone disciplinary discourse (Xu, 2017; Xu & Hu, 2019). However, achieving alignment is problematic. The students' culturally enrooted ideas can stand in the way, like Zhou's Chinese humbleness and her belief in the Chinese philosophy about the unity of the body and the mind. Moreover, apart from a consensus, controversies exist within and across disciplines. As in Wang's case, the two disciplines she rode on spoke differently about the research tradition and voice. Facing those differentiated, even contradictory ideas, the students must decide which ideas they are going to assimilate and to what extent. This selective assimilation is thus a struggling process, due to the cultural mismatch (Hirvela & Belcher, 2001; Molino, 2010; Xu & Grant, 2017). Or in a Bakhtinian sense, the struggles result from the differentiated ideas of others fighting for the hegemony within the students' subjective belief system, indicating their possible “active and engaged understanding” (Bakhtin, 1981, p. 282). Students' development of epistemology and voice come to fruition in this dialogic understanding, where students establish interrelationships, consonances, and dissonances between others' ideas and those they already assimilated. As Bakhtin (1984) insists, “an idea begins to live, i.e., to take shape, to develop, to find and renew ideas only when it enters into genuine dialogic relationships with other, foreign, ideas” (p. 88). Therefore, rather than being regarded as deficient, the Chinese international doctoral students bring a valuable “foreign repertoire” to the Anglophone scholarship, creating a space for differentiated ideas to meet and contend, which promotes thinking and disciplinary acculturation. Nevertheless, the selective assimilation continues as the students proceed with their doctoral journey with more others' ideas joining in the dialogue to challenge the status quo of their subjective belief system (e.g., epistemology, voice) (Bakhtin, 1981). What differs in the continuation of selective assimilation is that the students' increased disciplinary knowledge and their increased consciousness of being an independent and critical researcher can provide them with different perspectives

L. Xu, L.J. Zhang / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 41 (2019) 100779

11

for examining new ideas and, at the same time, re-examining those already assimilated ideas. This thinking and rethinking in return facilitate the students’ individual and social development and open up possibilities to explore or even challenge the disciplinary boundary. For example, Zhou proposed her own epistemology in her thesis and Wang intended to keep two incoherent voices in hers. Hence, the assimilation is an unfinished process (Bakhtin, 1981), fuelled by ongoing interactions, in which the students examine new ideas and at the same time, re-examine and thus renovate understandings of those already assimilated ideas within the context. In conclusion, this study shows that the students' voice in thesis writing reflects and embodies their epistemological stance e the philosophical views in relation to knowledge and knowing. The development of epistemology and voice is the result of the evolvement of the students' brought and created selves in both individual and social dimensions by means of selectively assimilating others' ideas, particularly from the discipline(s) and their own traditional cultural values. In other words, the assimilation is a process of adopting, borrowing, blending and appropriating others' ideas to one's own. This assimilation continues as the students keep interacting with others' ideas, creating a space for them to (re)interrogate differentiated ideas in context. Therefore, we can summarise that the students' voice e the representation of various selves in thesis writing e is individual and at the same time fundamentally social, relational and dialogic. Instead of being regarded as singular, coherent, and static, the voice in students' thesis writing can be multiple, incoherent, and dynamic with “openness” and “unfinishedness” (Bakhtin, 1981). 6. Implications and limitations This study intends to contribute to the discussion of voice in thesis writing by examining it with regard to the L2 international doctoral students' epistemological development, an element that is often ignored despite its significance in positioning the writer/researcher in relation to knowledge and knowing. This study also has provided a new understanding of the disciplinary acculturation by addressing the interplay among the disciplinary norms, the students' individuality with their brought and created selves, their increased disciplinary knowledge and growing consciousness of critical and independent thinking. In this sense, this study enriches the pedagogical and theoretical underpinning of doctoral thesis writing in that it is not only about improving doctoral students' language or writing skills, but also about the disciplinary acculturation in which the students acquire and negotiate disciplinary norms. This study also adds to the literature with its theoretical innovations. It advances Reinharz's (1997) framework of self by bringing in the concept of evolving self and applying it from a dialogic perspective, focusing on interactions among various agential factors, as well as others (Bakhtin, 1981). Our interpretation of the results points to several pedagogical and theoretical implications. At the micro-level, it is advisable for the supervisors and the Chinese international doctoral students, or broadly L2 international students, to establish a dialogic supervisory relationship in the process of thesis writing to facilitate dialogues among differentiated ideas. Such implications have been mentioned by scholars, but offer insufficient empirical evidence (Woolston, 2017). Our study is an attempt to offer empirical evidence in support of their claims. We also urge supervisors to be open to, and to value, the L2 international doctoral students’ cultural differences and enable them to beware of “their repertoire of voices they already own” (Hirvela & Belcher, 2001, p. 104) in negotiating with the discipline their voice in thesis writing. At the meso-level, it is necessary for institutions to provide maximum opportunities, such as workshops, seminars, and symposia for doctoral students, especially international students, who use English as their second or additional language for academic study, to communicate with members of the discourse community, to know and critically reflect upon the disciplinary norms. Lastly, it is important for the wider disciplinary community, which functions at the macro-level, to raise the level of tolerance about the alternative approaches and epistemologies, as well as the styles and forms with which students represent their work (Casanave, 2010). Despite the insights we intend to offer, we are aware that as this study focuses on two Chinese international doctoral students from the Faculty of Education, its findings may not be generalised to other contexts. In addition, the epistemological development is only one factor that can influence the students' voice in thesis writing. Its significance to voice evolvement may vary to other students from different disciplines, such as students majoring in science. Thus quantitative studies involving more students from more than one discipline can further illustrate the roles of epistemology in students' voice in thesis writing. Although we analysed the participants’ draft thesis as part of the data, discourse analysis of drafts at different stages can be of great value to show how L2 international doctoral student writers develop a distinctive voice in thesis writing. Acknowledgements We wish to thank The University of Auckland and the China Scholarship Council for their generous financial support in the form of a joint scholarship for doctoral study at The University of Auckland awarded to Linlin Xu. Appendix 1. interview schedule 1 1) Can you talk about the trajectory of your epistemological development? 2) What trigged the development?

12

L. Xu, L.J. Zhang / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 41 (2019) 100779

3) How did the epistemological development influence your academic writing, particularly your voice in thesis writing, such as your writing style? 4) Overall, can you characterise your voice in thesis writing under different epistemologies? 5) Do you have anything to add?

Appendix 2. interview schedule 2 The second interview aims to clarify and further probe into some issues. Because the two participants’ experiences varied, we cannot have a set of fixed questions for them, instead, we asked general questions for explanations and examples: 1) 2) 3) 4)

Can you explain this point which you mentioned in your … ? Can you give an example? Can you illustrate this point further? How did you do that? What do you mean by … ?

References Alexander, P. A. (2017). Reflection and reflexivity in practice versus in theory: Challenges of conceptualization, complexity, and competence. Educational Psychologist, 52(4), 307e314. Atkinson, D. R. (2001). Reflections and refractions on the JSLW special issue on voice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1e2), 107e124. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). In M. Holquist (Ed.), C. Emerson & M. Holquist, trans.)The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). In C. Emerson (Ed.), & trans.)Problems of Dostoevsky's poetics. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minesota Press. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines (2nd ed.). Buckingham, England: SRHE and Open University Press. Berge, K. L. (2007). The rhetoric of science in practice: Experiences from Nordic research on subject-oriented texts and text cultures. In K. Fløttum (Ed.), Language and discipline perspectives on academic discourse (pp. 40e64). Newcastle, England: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Bhowmik, S. K. (2016). Agency, identity and ideology in L2 writing: Insights from the EAP classroom. Writing & Pedagogy, 8(2), 275e308. Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (2013). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. London, England: Routledge. Bowden, D. (1995). The rise of a metaphor: “Voice” in composition pedagogy. Rhetoric Review, 14(1), 173e188. Cameron, D. (2012). Epilogue. In K. Hyland, & C. S. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 249e256). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan. Casanave, C. P. (2010). Taking risks?: A case study of three doctoral students writing qualitative dissertations at an American university in Japan. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(1), 1e16. Casanave, C. P. (2019). Performing expertise in doctoral dissertations: Thoughts on a fundamental dilemma facing doctoral students and their supervisors. Journal of Second Language Writing, 43, 57e62. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Paradigms and perspectives in contention. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 157e162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dressen-Hammouda, D. (2008). From novice to disciplinary expert: Disciplinary identity and genre mastery. English for Specific Purposes, 27(2), 233e252. Elbow, P. (1994). What do we mean when we talk about voice in texts? In K. B. Yancey (Ed.), Voices on voice: Perspectives, definitions, inquiry (pp. 1e35). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Elbow, P. (2007). Voice in writing again: Embracing contraries. College English, 70(2), 168e188. Fløttum, K. (2012). Variation of stance and voice across cultures. In K. Hyland, & C. S. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 218e231). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan. Fløttum, K., Dahl, T., & Kinn, T. (2006). Academic voices: Across languages and disciplines. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins. Glesne, C. (2016). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson. Guba, E. G. (1990). The paradigm dialog. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Guinda, C. S., & Hyland, K. (2012). Introduction: A context-sensitive approach to stance and voice. In K. Hyland, & C. S. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 1e11). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan. Hirvela, A., & Belcher, D. (2001). Coming back to voice: The multiple voices and identities of mature multilingual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1e2), 83e106. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Hyland, K. (2008). Disciplinary voices: Interactions in research writing. Journal of English Text Construction, 1(1), 5e22. Hyland, K. (2012). Disciplinary identities: Individuality and community in academic discourse. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Ivani
c, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins. Ivani
c, R., & Camps, D. (2001). I am how I sound: Voice as self-representation in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1e2), 3e33. Johnson, D. M. (1992). Approaches to research in second language learning. New York, NY: Longman. Law, N. W., Yuen, A. H., Chan, C. K., Yuen, J. K., Pan, N. F., Lai, M., et al. (2009). New experiences, new epistemology, and the pressures of change: The Chinese learner in transition. In C. Chan, & N. Rao (Eds.), Revisiting the Chinese learner: Chaing contexts, changing education (pp. 89e129). Hong Kong, HK SAR: Springer. Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 97e128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ~es, M. B., Cotterall, S., & Mideros, D. (2019). Identity, voice and agency in two EAL doctoral writing contexts. Journal of Second Language Writing, de Magalha 43, 4e14. Matsuda, P. K. (2001). Voice in Japanese written discourse: Implications for second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1e2), 35e53. Matsuda, P. K. (2015). Identity in written discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 140e159, 2015. Merriam, S. B. (1991). How research produces knowledge. In J. M. Peters, & P. Jarvis (Eds.), Adult education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Molino, A. (2010). Personal and impersonal authorial references: A contrastive study of English and Italian linguistics research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 86e101.

L. Xu, L.J. Zhang / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 41 (2019) 100779

13

Morton, J., & Storch, N. (2019). Developing an authorial voice in PhD multilingual student writing: The reader's perspective. Journal of Second Language Writing, 43, 15e23. , A. (2019). Re-writing the doctorate: New contexts, identities, and genres. Journal of Second Language Writing, 43, 80e84. Pare Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Prior, P. (2001). Voices in text, mind, and society: Sociohistoric accounts of discourse acquisition and use. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1e2), 55e81. Reinharz, S. (1997). Who am I? The need for a variety of selves in the field. In R. Hertz (Ed.), Reflexivity and voice (pp. 3e20). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Shen, L., Carter, S., & Zhang, L. J. (2019). EL1 and EL2 doctoral students' experience in writing the discussion section: A needs analysis. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 40, 74e86. Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22, 63e75. Shields, C. M. (2007). Bakhtin primer. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Silver, M. (2012). Voice and stance across disciplines in academic discourse. In K. Hyland, & C. S. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 202e217). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan. Starfield, S. (2015). First person singular: Negotiating identity in academic writing in English. In D. N. Djenar, A. Mahboob, & K. Cruickshank (Eds.), Language and identity across modes of communication (pp. 249e262). Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter. Starfield, S., & Paltridge, B. (2018). Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language: Context, identity, genre. Journal of Second Language Writing. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.10.002. Stewart, D. C. (1969). Prose with integrity : A primary objective. College Composition & Communication, 20, 223e227. Stock, I., & Eik-Nes, N. L. (2016). Voice features in academic textseA review of empirical studies. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 89e99. Tang, R., & John, S. (1999). The ‘I’in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, 18, S23eS39. Tardy, C. M. (2012). Current conceptions of voice. In K. Hyland, & C. S. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 34e48). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan. Tardy, C., & Matsuda, P. (2009). The construction of author voice by editorial board members. Written Communication, 26(1), 32e52. Woolston, C. (2017). Graduate survey: A love-hurt relationship. Nature, 550, 549e552. Xu, L. (2017). Written feedback in intercultural doctoral supervision: A case study. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(2), 239e255. Xu, L., & Grant, B. (2017). International doctoral students' becoming: A dialogic perspective. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 54(6), 570e579. Xu, L., & Hu, J. (2019). Language feedback responses, voices and identity (re) construction: Experiences of Chinese international doctoral students. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 1e12. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2019.1593214. Zhang, L. J. (2013). Second language writing as and for second language learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(4), 446e447. Zhang, L. J. (2016). Reflections on the pedagogical imports of western practices for professionalizing ESL/EFL writing and writing-teacher education. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 39(3), 203e232. Zhao, C. G. (2019). Writer background and voice construction in L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 37, 117e126. Dr Linlin Xu is Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics at University of Electronic Science and Technology of China and Post Doctoral Fellow at University of Auckland, New Zealand. Her research interests span intercultural education, EAP, academic writing, and discourse analysis. She is a member of AAAL. She has published on the topics of EAP and intercultural education in SSCI-indexed journals such as Teaching in Higher Education, TESOL Quarterly, and Innovations in Education and Teaching International and has been serving as a reviewer for journals such as Journal of Second Language Writing, TESOL Quarterly, System, and Innovations in Education and Teaching International. Lawrence Jun Zhang (PhD) is Professor of Applied Linguistics and Associate Dean, Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Auckland, New Zealand. His major interests and 100-plus publications are in learner metacognition and EAP. He is Co-Editor-in-Chief for System and TESOL Quarterly's Brief Research Reports, and an editorial board member for Applied Linguistics Review, Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, Journal of Second Language Writing, Metacognition and Learning, and RELC Journal. Additionally, he reviews manuscripts for many leading journals in the field: Applied Linguistics, MLJ, TESOL Quarterly, Reading and Writing, Reading and Writing Quarterly, JSLW, JEAP, ESP, and Language Learning, among others. He was honoured by the TESOL International Association (USA) with the award of “50@5000 , which acknowledged “50 Outstanding Leaders” in 2016 and was officially installed as a newly elected member of the Board of Directors of the Association in 2017.