Writing for Scholarly Publication in English for Researchers in the
Field of Arts and Humanities in Higher Education in Taiwan
Shih-Chieh Chien (簡士捷) Taipei Medical University Abstract
Writing for scholarly publication in English is competitive and demanding for
English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) researchers in the field of arts and humanities in higher education in Taiwan, particularly in light of the pressure to publish and the difficulties of mastering the English language. This study aims to explore the problems of Taiwanese researchers in the field of arts and humanities with regard to writing for scholarly publication in English. Drawing upon evidence from interviews with 30 researchers in the field of arts and humanities from 6 universities in Taiwan, the study identified a number of problems which confront Taiwanese scholars in the field of arts and humanities in writing for publication in English and which they feel they are in particular at a disadvantaged position when writing English. Some recommendations are made when guiding school planners in developing academic writing programs and activities for helping EFL researchers in professional
development and learning.
Keywords: English academic writing; writing for scholarly publication; English as a foreign language; Chinese/English; Taiwan
Introduction
The significance of writing for scholarly purposes in higher education has increased in English as a foreign language setting in an age of globalization in which professionals need to communicate effectively across languages and cultures. The dominance of English in international research has resulted in discussions in the literature (e.g., Belcher, 2007; Flowerdew & Li, 2007; Li & Flowerdew, 2009) on the need to appear internationally through publishing in English. Even for those who are native English speakers (NS), writing skills could be poor (Dugan & Polanski, 2006). Nevertheless, this problem is compounded for nonnative speakers (NNS) of English. English is the common language for professional communication, such as the publication of
research. Studies of NNS publication in English, particularly in the field of humanities and social sciences (e.g., Curry & Lillis, 2010; Flowerdew & Li, 2009; Li &
promoted in their careers.
In Taiwan, issues related to publishing in international English language journals by NNS recently have attracted considerable attention from the Taiwanese government authorities, as well as universities and researchers. Most universities in Taiwan have started to provide both ‘carrots and sticks’ to encourage researchers to publish internationally. ‘Carrots’ (incentives) are in the form of financial aids for researchers to publish internationally, and ‘sticks’ (pressures) are in the form of more rigorous requirements for senior researchers to get promoted unless they publish internationally. Thus, researchers face pressures to publish as a way to keep a job, to move up in rank, and to contribute to the research field by publishing. In addition to the apparent pressures, there are many other and probably more traditional reasons for researchers to get their work published. They might be peer recognition, the professional
conscientiousness to spell out one’s research or the desire to make a contribution to enhance human knowledge. Altogether, the pressures and motivations of scholarly publishing are almost impossible for researchers to avoid if they have a serious and realistic desire to begin an academic career.
In light of the importance of such an issue, this study aims to expand our
understanding and to explore issues of writing for scholarly publication in English for Taiwanese researchers in the field of arts and humanities in higher education, and to inform some practices in writing for scholarly publication. A closer examination of the nexus between writing for scholarly publication in English for researchers and practice of teaching and learning to write is warranted. Writing for scholarly publication needs to be understood in relation to the specific context of academic conventions and environments. This paper takes such a stance: writing for scholarly publication is a multi-layered phenomenon covering a wide spectrum of human activities. Assessing the spectrum can bring about re-examination in the
implementation of university policy in writing for scholarly publication in English. Re-thinking the implementation of policy in writing for scholarly publication in English is needed to achieve workable solutions in contemporary Taiwanese society.
Literature Review
Meaning of Scholarly Articles
not only the result but the method of academic studies in a form following set rules. Since its purpose is for experts in a given field to demonstrate and exchange their latest investigations, a scholarly article is often serious in attitude and clear-cut in style. University researchers, whether they are in the fields of arts and humanities, sciences or social sciences, are more often than not weighted more on their
publications, and especially on their record of publication in refereed journals, than on any other scholarly or teaching activity. This is for the reason that the core business of the practicing researcher is to disseminate and enhance human knowledge, and the scholarly work is the major way for claiming original knowledge. Researchers in different research areas make knowledge claims by writing scholarly articles that are refereed by their peers and published in professional journals. Whatever the research field, all journal articles need to present evidence for knowledge claims in language appropriate to the norms of the academic community, with the purpose of convincing other members of the community that the claim is valid. Everything in the articles aims at supporting the knowledge claims.
Refereed journals send out articles for blind review. In most cases, at least two anonymous referees review an article, and usually there are two rounds of reviews. Peer review is a process of self-regulation by referees or a process of evaluation involving a community of experts in a given field. It is used to uphold standards, improve performance and offer credibility (Brown, 2004; Hernon & Schwartz, 2006). In the academic community peer review is usually used to determine a paper’s quality and suitability for publication. It is also the process of subjecting a researcher’s scholarly work or thoughts to the inspection of others who are professionals in the same field, before a manuscript describing the work is published in a journal. The work may be accepted, considered acceptable with minor revisions, rejected but encourage revision and invite resubmission, or rejected outright (Richardson, 2002). Pragmatically, the process of peer review encourages a researcher to meet the
established standards in a specific field. Publications that do not undergo peer review are likely to be considered doubt by scholars and professionals.
Problems of Writing for Scholarly Publication in English by NNS
acceptance of non-native characteristics in NNS’ writings (Flowerdew, 2001), there is also evidence of people criticizing such characteristics. For instance, Ammon (2000), an English book editor, criticizes NNS on the grounds of “near unintelligibility [as] the grammatical mistakes are so severe” (p. 113). Likewise, reviewers might regard NNS’ papers as unacceptable because there was a regional accent and style (Curry & Lillis, 2004). Gosden (2003) indicated that a high rejection percentage of authors from NNS background was partly due to the high occurrence of errors in their English articles.
Problems of writing and publishing which researchers face in East Asian countries may be different from that of the ESL students who pursuing degrees in Western countries (Tardy, 2004). In Asia, Flowerdew (1999, 2000, 2001, 2007 with Li, 2009 with Li) has undertaken extensive research investigating a variety of aspects of publishing in English journals. The participants were mainly Hong Kong researchers who used English as their instructional language. He conducted interviews with these researchers’ experience and views on publishing in English journals (Flowerdew, 1999) and undertook an ethnographic case study of the process of trying to have their research articles published in English journals by one of those researchers (Flowerdew, 2000). In his studies of Hong Kong researchers submitting papers to English journals, Flowerdew (1999, 2000) found their difficulties with rhetorical or discursive
structures in writing. For example, the researchers found it problematic to structure an introduction, a literature review, a discussion, to imply or emphasize the major
contribution of the study, and to make persuasive arguments. Flowerdew (1999) stated that such problems could “critically affect what gets published by NNS on global scale” (p. 259).
In Li and Flowerdew’s 2009 paper, students defined as multilingual scholars in Hong Kong present their progress of writing for publication in view of the
internationalization of higher education. Distinguishing academic publishing for students in the humanities and social sciences and in science and engineering fields, Li and Flowerdew (2009) found a kind of ambivalence toward publishing papers in English. The problems of writing in English publication for non-native scholars may lead them to struggle in publishing international or local journals. More specifically, in their research, Hong Kong scholars indicated clear resistance to get published in the international journals because of the assessment requirement from institutions. Li and Flowerdew (2009) stated that these scholars need to choose and have a negotiation in publishing either English or Chinese journals. For many Hong Kong scholars,
shift the regional academic community, to inform the local readership and guide field practice, to influence policy making, and to educate the average Chinese people. In summary, Flowerdew’s studies have made significant contribution to the understanding of problems in publishing scholarly articles in English journals. Nonetheless, they were primarily conducted in the Hong Kong context where researchers use English as their instructional language, a significant contrast to the teaching context in Mainland China and Taiwan.
Needs Analysis
Researchers in Taiwan, like other NNS, face English language problems in their attempts in international publication. Despite the importance of English scholarly writing, questions remain unanswered for the Taiwanese researchers and teachers about the problems and needs of scholarly writing. Even though there is an explosion in the number of writing for scholarly purposes, little is known about how researchers are engaged in writing and publishing in international English language journals, particularly in the field of arts and humanities. Therefore, the role of a needs analysis deserves attention in English for academic purposes (Benesch, 1996) in the present study.
Research Method
Since English is becoming increasingly dominant as the international language of research and publication, there is a need to empirically investigate the question of scholarly publication in English on the part of NNS. The present study, which looks at researchers’ perceptions of writing for scholarly publication in English in the field of arts and humanities in higher education in Taiwan, is situated in the backdrop of globalization when the government encourages researchers and teachers to publish internationally so as to meet the social demands of a global culture and to increase the international visibility. As there have been concerns that NNS researchers are at some disadvantage of publishing in English in academia, this study more specifically explored the issues and problems that researchers in the field of arts and humanities would experience when they aimed to publish their scholarly work. The study used interviews to investigate the needs of researchers in scholarly writing. The results of a needs analysis provided a basic framework for the development of scholarly writing. An explanatory case study as described by Yin (1993; 1994; 2003) was the
methodology used in implementing the study. According to Yin (2003), the case study is an ideal methodology when an in-depth research is required. Case studies have been widely used in research, mostly in language and social studies. The objective of the study was twofold: (1) to determine difficulties encountered by Taiwanese researchers writing and publishing scholarly papers; and (2) to make recommendations that address researchers writing needs so that it may allow researchers to be confident and lifelong scholarly writers in English. In view of the literature background and
contextual description provided above, this study sought to answer the questions as follows:
1. What are researchers’ perceptions of publishing in English in the field of arts and humanities?
2. What are their problems of publishing in English? 3. What are their needs for successful publishing? Data Collection
semi-structured individual interviews with them in order to establish a broad understanding of the issues concerning the needs of Taiwanese researchers as perceived by them for the purpose of exploring issues of writing for scholarly
publication in English and their experiences of learning to write. Their participation in the study was voluntary and anonymity was ensured. More specifically, the interviews were designed to explore and understand researchers’ perceptions of their problems in writing for scholarly publication in English. The purpose of the interviews sought to find out what challenges that researchers in the field of arts and humanities
experienced and how they coped with the challenges from research to publishing. As stated by Bazerman and Prior (2004), interviews that focus specifically on the writing such as writing interviews, making us more able to explore researchers’ reasons for having particular problems of writing for scholarly publication in English. In this study, the format of interviews consisted of three parts. The first part was about researchers’ fields of research and experiences in English journal publication. The second part focused on academic writing difficulties in language, content
development, organization, structure, and writing different sections in a research paper. The third part involved researchers’ needs for help during the academic writing
process. The interviews were audiotaped, which would be transcribed verbatim later in data analysis.
Open-ended explanatory questions were be used as the questions to give a framework for researchers to reflect on the role of English in their academic life and their
perceptions of the possibilities and limitations for their attempts in publishing English scholarly articles. The interview questions, designed to address the three parts
indicated above, are listed as follows. Interview Questions
1. Would you please illustrate your research field and experience in getting or trying to get published in English?
2. What do you think about the role of English writing in your academic life? 3. Would you please explain the procedures you undertake when you prepare your own paper for publication in English?
4. What are the similarities and differences when you try to get your paper published in English and Chinese?
5. In writing English and Chinese papers, which part(s) of the paper are the easiest/most difficult for you? Why?
7. Do you think are there any particular problems for researchers in Taiwan in trying to get their papers published in English journals? What are the particular problems in your discipline?
8. Do you have any personal problems in writing English papers, such as language, content development, organization, structure, and writing different sections? 9. What are your strengths and weaknesses in writing English papers? 10. Do you have any strategies that can make your English papers better? 11. What are your needs for successful publishing in English?
12. If you have any problems or obstacles in writing for scholarly publication in English, what would you do?
13. What are similarities and differences in publishing English articles in journals/books in Taiwan and abroad (e.g., in terms of difficulties, procedures)? 14. What are advantages and disadvantages for researchers in Taiwan to publish their English articles in the global world?
15. In your opinion, what are similarities and differences in publishing English articles in the fields of arts and humanities, social sciences and natural sciences? Each of these questions, and their follow-up questions, were planned to promote researchers to narrate situations and stories that they considered to be pertinent to their experiences in writing for scholarly publication in English. The questions, as specified above, were not essentially the order asked during the interview, varying in accordance with each researcher. Moreover, if necessary, additional questions were inquired to obtain information of particular relevance to particular individual researcher. Some characteristics of the interviews were contrastive questions
(Spradley, 1979), such as “What are the similarities and differences when you try to get your paper published in English and Chinese?” and “In writing English and Chinese papers, which part(s) of the paper are the easiest/most difficult for you? Why?”. The interviews, depending on situations, lasted from one to two hours, mostly taking place in the office of the investigator or in a school classroom. All interviews were carried out in Chinese by the investigator, recorded digitally, and then
In addition, the interviews were co-constructed by the interviewer and the interviewee interactively (Block, 2000; Gubrium & Holstein, 2002). In the present study the investigator acted as the role of a facilitator to let the researchers lead the interview process. His previous experiences provided him with an insider perspective which combined with his outsider role as an independent investigator, featuring an important methodological strength of this study. This insider/outsider perspective enabled him to empathize with the researchers and thus to establish a strong rapport with them throughout the data collection phase. From the interview transcripts in the study, the researchers (possibly because of their ability to articulate their own thoughts)
constantly took control of the interviews, continued their dominance throughout the interviews, and were open-minded to express their viewpoints. In light of this, the researchers’ perceptions of their connection with the investigator could to some extent have an influence on what they narrated (Silverman, 2002). In this study the
investigator’s standing of being an insider (teaching writing at the university and therefore giving a sense of collegiality) and an outsider (generally do not know these researchers and how they learn to write and publish their papers) let the researchers provide frank and open expression of viewpoints.
Data Analysis
The data analysis focused on interviews, which yielded considerable data. All
interview data were transcribed verbatim, analyzed and reported. They were analyzed qualitatively. In the interview data analysis, the investigator and research assistant worked together and abided by the processes of analytic induction (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984) and constant comparison (Miles & Huberman, 1994). They
followed the principle of not seeing interview data as representational (of reality), but as presentational (“issues related to the presentation of self”) (Block, 2000, p. 758). Particular focus was centered on the divergent viewpoints articulated by the
researchers, without making true or false judgment of a presupposed “reality.”
themes.
Finally, the investigator and research assistant combined multiple research
inscriptions including the researchers’ answers in the interviews and themes emerging in transcripts of all interviews. They read these data sources repeatedly and
intertextually against each other so as to arrive at a documented report. The results are presented in the form of qualitative comments. The researchers’ perceptions of
writing for scholarly publication in English are the evidence to help illustrate points. When the data in an interview are reported in this study, they are indicated by the pseudonym of the interviewee (e.g., researcher 13).
Results
The data analysis was a trail-and-error and continuing process. Through in-depth interviews, the study identified a number of problems which researchers in Taiwan have to face in writing for publication in English and which they feel that they are in particular at a disadvantaged position when compared with native speakers of English. Three salient themes emerged through the study, including the need for publication in English, difficulties in writing in English (vocabulary, grammar, discourse
organization and tone), and the need for academic writing support. The imperative for researchers to publish internationally in English journals was indicated by the
researchers interviewed in this study. Results pertaining to emerging themes are explained as follows.
The Need for Publication in English
One of the major themes emerging in the present study is the need for publication in English. As indicated by the researchers, scholarly publication has become the coin of the realm for anyone wishing to work in academia. Success or failure to publish can determine a researcher’s career prospect. Of perhaps greater concern, due to the globalization and internationalism, the ability to clearly write and publish one’s research findings in English determines the greater extent to which those findings can be cited as the basis for research by others. In this study, all researchers articulated the need for publication in English. Some representative examples are given by
researchers 21, 2, 28 and 13.
researchers to write in English. I think most researchers are conscious of the competitiveness of the job market in academia, and publication is one of the major indexes of employability. In the present context, this is illustrated not least by the National Science Council and Ministry of Education, where higher education institutions are assessed and money allocated to researchers on the basis of their scholarly, peer-reviewed publications, particularly in English. (researcher 21)
For the purpose of ensuring the quality of the graduate programs at universities, it becomes a common requirement for researchers to get published in international journals, preferably journals listed on Arts and Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) or Sciences Citation Index (SCI). Most of the journals listed under the above mentioned database are written in English; therefore, researchers not only have to demonstrate good research skills, but also to write like a scholar in English. Thus, there is a growing demand of English proficiency, especially writing skills for researchers. (researcher 2)
Considering the prosperity that the global academia brings, writing and publishing in English play an important role in my research life. Scholarly articles published in English are almost in every academic discipline and are used as a major means for international scholars and researchers to share their research and discoveries with others who are also experts in their discipline. As English is widely recognized as an international language, I aim to publish my work in English. The purpose of writing and publishing an academic research in English is to achieve a better understanding of the current and latest state of research in a particular area and to develop new ideas that enhance understanding of the subject. (researcher 28)
In Taiwan, the bibliometric systems in the humanities and social sciences, such as Taiwan Arts and Humanities Citation Index (THCI) and Taiwan Social Sciences Index (TSSCI) from the standpoint of assessing the potential for
research evaluation nationally or internationally are introduced and established.
Although a number of the journals listed on THCI and TSSCI are published in Chinese, there is a trend that getting published in English is encouraged. (researcher 13)
international research has resulted in the pressure for researchers to publish internationally in English. On the other hand, with the trend of international
publishing, publication in English leads to the globalization of its language. Due to the impact of globalization, writing scholarly articles for publishing in English is gradually becoming necessary for researchers. In Taiwan while some languages are more widespread than others, the trend toward publishing in English tends to be more prevalent and preferred than other languages in academic publication. Publication in English has become an important goal that is in the interest of researchers in Taiwan. Possibly one of the important factors in publishing research is the yearning to share it with others. It may not be a good idea to leave new research on the shelf. Moreover, there are some more factors to take into consideration, such as proving that the research can be done and make contribution to a particular field. Potential academic employers are often more interested in researchers’ potential to publish in English journals and may prefer to see a number of important pieces in well-established and respected journals listed on A&HCI, SSCI or SCI to a number of research articles in mediocre ones.
In addition, there may be a good prospect for researchers to publish their work in English in the present globalization context partly due to the fast growing economy and increasing influence of Greater China. For instance, researcher 4 indicated: “People might become more interested in the area of Greater China and researchers may have something to contribute to the international community.”
Difficulties in Writing in English (vocabulary, grammar, tone, and discourse organization)
The second major theme emerging in the present study is the difficulties in writing in English when Taiwanese researchers try to get their work published in English. For non-native speakers as scholars, writing a successful scholarly article means
overcoming a series of multi-faceted challenges. First, they use a second language to write for the purpose of convincing their peers. Second, they are required to write with lucidity and coherence, in accordance with the format and organization required by certain authorities, such as journal and book editors and reviewers. Third, among them and their peer readers, there are cultural differences which may lead to
misinterpretation. In the study, all researchers noted a degree of dissatisfaction with the use of English in their writing. They stated that there were difficulties in terms of writing professionally in English. Six main issues were identified and widely
mentioned by researchers, including a large amount of time that requires in English writing, lack of sophisticated vocabulary, lack of varieties in sentence patterns in writing, lack of skills in using the appropriate tone, and the problems of using language and organizing research papers, as shown in the following examples.
Time: Unlike NS, it is often not easy for me to express in English. It is not a language that I can express myself in a precise way. The more I write the more simple patterns and languages I find. NNS need much more time than NS for writing. They write slower, and their thinking process is slower too. Usually they spend their entire life on writing English, but they still need help and time. This is a disadvantage. (researcher 16)
Vocabulary: Writing papers is a key task in academic life. Nevertheless, we are, generally, poorly prepared. My biggest problem is vocabulary. I do not have enough sophisticated vocabulary to fully express my idea. If I do not want to repeat the same word again and again in several sentences, I need to consult a dictionary to find other words. (researcher 8)
Sentence Varieties: When I read NS’ writing, I find that I write in a simple way. My writing is not that complex. I would like to have more complex argument and write more complex structures. (researcher 12)
Searching the right word takes a lot of time when I write papers. In English, there are many words that carry multiple different levels of meanings. Much of the difficulties and misunderstanding in written communication are related to these nuances. In view of this, I think that the word choices among
near-synonyms have to be made very carefully, as near-synonyms are very close in meaning. For instance, error, mistake, and blunder all refer to a kind of error. Nonetheless, mistake contains an implication of misconception or misunderstanding and is generally less severe than error or blunder. On the other hand, blunder contains an implication of accident or ignorance and is generally more severe than error or mistake, usually due to not taking care. In addition to the subtle differences of word meanings among near-synonyms, when choosing an appropriate word, I also need to make sure it fits well with the other words in a sentence. This is not easy. More often than not I have to look up words and check their use in the dictionary. (researcher 1)
Tone: In my field [linguistics], a writer’s tone is important to scholarship. In academic writing, using the appropriate tone can help the researcher engage the reader. Nonetheless, tone sometimes is a problem for me. How to maintain an objective tone is quite important. Oftentimes my language is not neutral enough. If I want to disagree or criticize something, I need to be very careful about how I do it. Also, if I want to refer to something, I have to be careful about how I phrase it. For instance, in writing research papers I made statements that did not sound scholarly or academic. They were extreme. I think in some cases, it was difficult to determine the tone of criticism. I feel that I am not able to write like NS researchers. (researcher 14)
Discourse Organization: I think that the writing of introduction and
discussion/conclusion sections is the most challenging for me. These sections are particularly important. The introduction showcases the article. The
discussion/conclusion section is equally important in that it usually compares and contrasts the present results with the previous literature. In addition, it summarizes the achievement of the article and suggests directions that the academic community might take in extending the research described in the body of the text. (researcher 23)
proficiency in English. Language poses lots of difficulties for them. They have problems in fully expressing their viewpoints in English. The problems of writing range from vocabulary, grammar, discourse organization, to tone. For example, they do not have sufficient English vocabulary and have a narrow knowledge of it; their sentence varieties are to some extent limited and simple; they have a limited understanding of correct word usage; they make mistakes in grammar usage; and more often than not, they need to consult the dictionary to check the appropriate use of particular words and their usages, such as discovering word relationships and nuances in word meanings [e.g., meanings among a variety of closely related verbs (e.g., jog, lope, run, sprint), adjectives (e.g., thin, slender, slim, skinny), and nouns (e.g., error, mistake, blunder)]. Therefore, much time is usually needed for them to write English papers. Furthermore, a writer’s tone plays a key role in conveying the intended message and in achieving the intended results. As evidenced in the above interview data (indicated by researcher 14), the researcher has difficulties in using the appropriate tone when making arguments in academic writing. The use of tone is important, since it delivers a particular message from the researcher as a writer and influences the reader in a particular way. It can also influence how the reader receives the information when the researcher is communicating. When determining and
identifying the appropriate tone to use, the researcher needs to think about why he/she writes the paper, who the reader is, and more importantly, what the researcher wants the reader to learn and do with the information given in the paper.
In addition to the issue of writing the introduction and discussion/conclusion, it is noted that in the present study almost all of the researchers indicated different
language requirements between arts and humanities, and natural sciences. Researchers could be frustrated due to their language problems and lack of appropriate writing skills. A representative example is given as follows.
In the area of arts and humanities, it is different from natural sciences where there are precise results. In natural sciences, math is an international language. Generally speaking, it is universally applicable. Scientists can prove
experiments in lab with math. Nonetheless, researchers in the field of arts and humanities need to prove things through language, which is the language very different from math. In my research field [literature], I need to express
subtleties clearly. If I want write a decent paper, I have to rely heavily on using language to persuade readers and reviewers. There are NS also doing similar research. More often than not, I think NS publish relatively more easily when writing on the same topic in arts and humanities. (researcher 17)
In view of this, in academia, publishing is important, but a lack of adequate English language proficiency and skills is possibly an obstacle. The higher level features of language use are regarded as important to researchers in the field of arts and humanities as, in researcher 17’s words, “unlike scientists, the work produced by researchers in the field of arts and humanities relies mainly on language, and thereupon issues of language complexity, vocabulary richness, and tone in writing gain importance.”
The Need for Academic Writing Support
topics that can be fit in the context of Greater China, using center frameworks from the Anglo-European center theorists to frame local issues as well as enriching center theories, having appropriate individual guidance/proofreading in writing, participating in writing workshops, or attending relevant writing courses can be beneficial. From the individual aspect, a representative example given by researcher 2 is illustrated as follows.
In the past few decades, I see publishing in the internationally indexed journals as a leading factor and Taiwanese researchers try to use different strategies to enhance the opportunities of publication. I think these strategies include three main categories. First, Taiwanese researchers would explore research topics or issues that can be applicable in Greater China. They believe that Taiwan is a small place to get international attention. Second, Taiwanese researchers use center frameworks from the Anglo-European center theorists to frame local issues. Third, Taiwanese researchers aim to enrich center theories rather than to add new materials in order to get published in the center journals. (researcher 2) From the institutional aspect, researchers explained that individual guidance and collaborating-colleague workshops can be helpful to develop their writing skills for publishing in English.
One of the dilemmas in English publishing is that if I need a proofreader’s help, I need to spend my money on asking him/her to help me produce a polished product. The school needs to establish an in-depth training program that would target the writing skills gap effectively. Ideally, writing assistance should help researchers with several aspects, including word choice, sentence structure, discourse organization, and the convention of publishing. (researcher 18)
I appreciate the need for, and help from, instruction in English academic writing. Every writer has his/her own weakness. In particular I am likely to make certain errors in English writing due to transfer from Chinese. If I am untrained in writing, the issue of poor writing may perhaps be partly solved with the help of an experienced, professional editor or proofreader. Nevertheless, I do not think it is enough. I still need long-term academic writing support from the school, such as holding writing workshops and relevant writing courses regularly. (researcher 3)
writing, foster the awareness of differences between English and Chinese academic writing conventions and let me have a clear understanding of criteria and standards for scholarly publication in English, thereby making it easier for me to begin writing a manuscript and helping me to get it published.
Collaboration with colleagues, writing specialists and instructors can be of great help. (researcher 25)
As evidenced in the interview data, in order to increase the chances of scholarly publications in international journals, researchers may adopt some strategic plans with the help of universities. These strategies and resources come from different aspects, but generally there are two types of resources to help scholars publish in English. The first type is the linguistic or rhetoric aspect, facilitating researchers’ language in academic writing. The second one is the material, financial, and social aspect (e.g., equipment, research funds, and suggestions from colleagues and writing specialists). The mobility of these resources is to some extent related to network participation, e.g., connecting and receiving help from other researchers, getting feedback from
colleagues and writing specialists, or getting publishing opportunities. Such
participation can be considered essential in English publishing. As stated by Lillis and Curry (2010), “these resources are accessed via participation in academic research networks, which constitute a form of ‘social capital’ (Bourdieu, 1985; Portes, 2000) that is invaluable within the competitive economy of knowledge production, by supporting scholars’ publishing in English” (p. 282).
In summary, as writing skills are increasingly important, to better prepare researchers for academia and those who aspire to publish in English, universities may need to consider providing appropriate writing instruction and guidance for researchers, and help them find ways to overcome the language barrier, especially to those who are not fluent in English. More specifically, universities can, for example, establish academic writing programs and activities for EFL researchers in terms of promoting their professional development and learning, including (1) fostering the awareness of differences between English and Chinese academic writing conventions, (2)
criteria is presented), and developing sentence-level English and discourse strategies for expressing researchers’ meaning (e.g., verb tense and voice in different sections).
Conclusion
The present study aims to explore researchers’ perceptions of issues and problems in writing for scholarly publication in English in the field of arts and humanities in higher education in Taiwan. It was conducted through in-depth semi-structured
individual interviews with researchers in order to collect empirical data as noted in the research method section. In the study, researchers’ perceptions of issues and problems in writing for scholarly publication in English were investigated via employing a needs analysis as a framework for understanding the learning of writing skills and publishing practices of NNS researchers.
The findings reveal that publishing in international journals has become one of the prerequisites for researchers. They regard themselves as disadvantaged due to their limited proficiency in English compared with native English speakers. Unlike their first language, they do not have sufficient vocabulary. They find it relatively difficult for them to construct a good argument for their research in English. More often than not, they need to look up the dictionary to check the appropriate use of particular words and their usages. Therefore, much time is usually needed from them to write English papers. In addition, their vocabulary use and sentence varieties are to some extent limited and simple.
The needs analysis framework offers an important insight: NNS researchers’
motivation to learn to write for publication despite their perceived English language incompetence. They are motivated to remedy the situation because English plays a role in their research, and they hope to improve their own English writing. Based on the findings in the present study, it is clear that researchers need academic writing support. The skill for academic writing is not an inheritance, which denotes that it may not come naturally; it requires long-term training and acquisition. Throwing the need for such academic writing training is the fact that meanwhile English is
becoming increasingly prevalent in the field of arts and humanities. NNS researchers need training and support in their scholarly English writing abilities.
community where publication is paramount. As English has become a big challenge for most researchers because of their lack of appropriate English writing skills, they have the right to care about and find ways to get their work published. On the one hand, researchers are frustrated because they struggle with writing research papers in English. On the other hand, editors and reviewers are also frustrated because the papers may seem unpublishable, requiring laborious revision, especially to
researchers who are not fluent in English. To address these expressed concerns, as a matter of fact, being aware of the existence of the problem is the beginning of the solution. Understanding the meaning of scholarly articles and problems of writing for scholarly publication in English is an important first step to address the issue. Thus, the findings of this study have the potential to bolster up university standards by having the problem of writing for scholarly publication to be addressed.
For example, in the Chinese EFL context such as Taiwan, as academics themselves, in the present study writers in the field of arts and humanities have documented their attempts to negotiate a path between the limited resources of the education sector and the growing publication demands placed upon them. Academic writing is an important issue that needs great attention and support from the academic community. More specifically, universities should develop effective frameworks to assist researchers in their academic development. For instance, the offer of writing courses or services can have an important role to play for researchers who are struggling with academic writing and thus can be maintained by universities as a crucial area of support. It could be a plus for researchers if they have the support of language professionals in mentoring service or editorial assistance to help them overcome the English language barrier and express their intended meaning well in the paper on their way toward successful publication in the academic community. For those writing instructors who are eager to give more effective instruction and guidance to researchers, the training of writing, such as vocabulary, grammar, discourse organization and tone through related workshops or courses might be beneficial. Without such support problems may arise not only for researcher retention and engagement but also for overall research production and quality.
researchers integrate and make use of what they learn in the English training program in their scholarly writing process.
References
Ammon, U. (2000). Towards more fairness in international English: Linguistic rights of non-native speakers? In R. Phillipson (ed.), Rights to language: Equity,
power and education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bazerman, C. & Prior, P. (2004). What writing does and how it does it: An
introduction to analysis of texts and textual practices. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Belcher, D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 16(1), 1-22.
Benesch, S. (1996). Needs analysis and curriculum development in EAP: An example of a critical approach. TESOL Quarterly, 30(4), 723-738.
Block, D. (2000). Problematizing interview data: Voices in the mind's machine?
TESOL Quarterly, 34, 757–763.
Bourdieu, P. (1985). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood Press.
Brown, T. (2004). Peer review and the acceptance of new scientific ideas. Retrieved May 10, 2012 from http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/pdf/PeerReview.pdf Cameron, R. (1998). A language-focused needs analysis for ESL-speaking nursing
students in class and clinic. Foreign Language Annals, 31(2), 203-218.
Curry, M. J. & Lillis, T. (2004). Multilingual scholars and the imperative to publish in English: Negotiating interests, demands, and rewards. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 663–688.
Curry, M. J. & Lillis, T. (2010). Academic research networks: Accessing resources for English-medium publishing. English for Specific Purposes, 29(4), 281-295. Dugan, R. & Polanski, V. (2006). Writing for computer science: A taxonomy of
writing tasks and general advice. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges,
21(6), 191-203.
Flowerdew, J. (1999). Problems in writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 243-264.
Flowerdew, J. (2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the nonnative-English-speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 127-149. Flowerdew, J. (2001). Attitudes of journal editors to non-native speaker contributions.
Flowerdew, J. & Li, Y. (2007). Language re-use among Chinese apprentice scientists writing for publication. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 440-465.
Goetz, J. & LeCompte, M. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational
research. New York: Academic Press.
Gosden, H. (2003). Why not give us the full story?: Functions of referees’
comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 2, 87–101.
Gubrium, J. F. & Holstein, J. A. (2002). Handbook of interview research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hernon, P. & Schwartz, C. (2006). Peer review revisited. Library & Information
Science Research, 28, 1-3.
Jenkins, S., M. K. Jordan, & O’Weilland, P. (1993). The role of writing in graduate engineering education: A survey of faculty beliefs and practices. English for
Specific Purposes, 12, 51-67.
Kelle, U. (2005). "Emergence" vs. "Forcing" of Empirical Data? A Crucial Problem of "Grounded Theory" Reconsidered. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung /
Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal] 6(2), Art. 27, paragraphs
49 and 50. Retrieved April 21, 2012, from
http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/467
Li, Y. & Flowerdew, J. (2009). International engagement versus local commitment: Hong Kong academics in the humanities and social sciences writing for publication. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8, 279-293.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
source book (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Portes, A. (2000). The two meanings of social capital. Sociological Forum, 15(1), 1-12.
Richardson, J. V. (2002). The peer review process: Acceptance, revisions, and outright rejections. The Library Quarterly, 72(1), v-xi.
Silverman, D. (2002). Interpreting qualitative data (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Tardy, C. M. (2004). The role of English in scientific communication: Lingua franca or Tyrannosaurus rex? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(3), 247-269. Yin, R. K. (1993). Applications of case study research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
