professional academic writing

Full Report of Research Activities and Results

ESRC project RES-000-22-0098: Professional Academic Writing in a Global Context

Background

English has become the dominant language of scholarly publishing in almost every academic field (Crystal, 1997; Graddol, 1997). In many academic institutions worldwide, publication in English-medium academic journals seems to have become a major criterion for promotion and for supporting scholars' research grant applications (Flowerdew 1999, 2000, 2002; Yakhontova, 1997). To date, however, little research has examined the academic writing practices of multilingual scholars who have studied and are working outside of English-speaking countries (but see Canagarajah, 2002a).

The research sought to explore these broad questions:

?What obstacles and opportunities do scholars in different settings encounter in their efforts to publish in English?

?In what ways do local, national, and international networks support scholars’ writing in English?

?Which texts are successful or unsuccessful in being accepted for publication, and why?

To study these questions, we have been working with 43 scholars from eastern Europe (Slovakia, Hungary) and southern Europe (Spain and Portugal). These sites form part of the ‘Expanding Circle’ (Kachru 2001), in which English is used as a foreign language and increasingly as an instrumental language in education, commerce, and other areas. The ‘Expanding Circle’ contrasts to the ‘Inner Circle,’ which includes nations such as the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia. We hypothesized that particular difficulties would be faced by scholars working in

‘Expanding Circle’ contexts, where English has historically been less important (southern and eastern Europe), where scholars are working in historically marginalised contexts within Europe (eastern Europe), and where economic conditions are less favourable (eastern Europe). We considered that these material circumstances, related to both economic and linguistic resources, would have an impact on scholars’ academic writing practices and opportunities for English medium publication. Our findings thus have implications for issues of equity in the global academic ‘marketplace’ (Gibbs, 1995), notably, the participation of scholars from the ‘Expanding Circle’ in global academic knowledge production.

Objectives

Our aims were to:

(1) Further our understanding of the English language and academic literacy practices of international scholars in Hungary, Slovakia, Spain and Portugal by documenting the backgrounds, experiences, and goals of participants and by examining academics’ writing in

English, their use of published texts written by native and non-native speakers of English, and the resources they draw on and professional networks that they are involved in.

We have met this aim by increasing the number of participants in the three established sites and successfully establishing a new site in Portugal with 10 scholars. We have met our larger aim of documenting scholars’ writing practices, the resources they draw on and the networks in which they are involved (see Results).

(2) Construct a multidimensional model of data gathering and analysis that combines a larger focus on local social and political histories and material conditions with close linguistic analysis of the English texts with which scholars work.

We have combined ethnographic methods of data collection with the compilation of a large amount of scholars’ texts and scholars’ commentary on the production of these texts. We refer to this as a‘text-oriented ethnography’. This data collection model has incorporated a variety ethnographic data(e.g.,semi-structured literacy history interviews,group discussions,email discussions, observations, meetings with librarians, institutional and historical documentary data) and academic text data, that is the texts written by scholars and detailed discussions about these texts. In order to collect and analyse this data we developed a series of tools. These included interview protocols, case study templates and text analysis frameworks. Key themes have been analysed drawing on the different data sources.

Although labour intensive, this model of data collection and analysis is the most comprehensive way of exploring text production in context. Specifically this model has enabled us to trace the publication histories of scholars’ texts within their specific contexts of production. This is done by, for example, tracking an English medium journal article from first draft through multiple drafts with the input of literacy brokers, to feedback from journal editors and reviewers, to drafts that respond to this feedback, through to the published version. This model has also enabled us to generate key themes for future analysis which can be carried out using computer software with specific data sets; for example, N 6 for analysis of interview data about scholars' perspectives on specific issues arising when writing on EU related projects; concordancers to analyse and compare occurrences of specific linguistic features across texts published in different- national, EU and international- contexts (see Future Research Priorities).

(3) Contribute to the advancement of theories related to the social practice theory of literacy, sociocultural notions of learning, and the fields of World Englishes/ contrastive rhetoric.

Our research contributes by:

?Extending current conceptualisations of the nature and function of ‘literacy mediators’(Baynham, 1993) to view ‘mediators’ as ‘brokers’(Kalman 1999) by linking the notion of

‘mediated activity’ with the notion of cultural capital (Bourdieu 1998);

?Exploring the roles ‘brokers’ play in the production of texts across national and international contexts;

?Enhancing the theory of ‘community', a key concept in sociocultural theories of literacy and learning, by drawing together not only notions of ‘discourse community’ and

‘community of practice’ but also ‘sociolinguistic speech community’ in the context of

local/global academic writing. We are also exploring the meanings of 'networks' in

multilingual and multicultural contexts;

?Advancing a more dynamic understanding of ‘expert’ and ‘novice’ relations, by demonstrating how scholars fall along different continua in terms of disciplinary

expertise and English language knowledge;

?Foregrounding the existence of ‘academic Englishes’ that vary across local and international contexts. Many published English texts written by multilingual scholars

include ‘errors’ when measured against a notion of ‘standard’ English, yet these texts have been deemed suitable for publication. A future aim will be to re-examine such errors

drawing on notions of Englishes/English as a lingua franca.

(4) Contribute to the development of pedagogical methods and materials that will serve others who need to write in academic English. Invite participants to participate in an academic writing workshop based on the research findings and other knowledge related to English academic writing.

We have offered workshops in each site based on the project’s findings and are piloting an Advanced Academic Literacy at the Open University between March and May 2004, drawing on findings from the research. On a broader scale, our findings indicate that practical suggestions for scholars to increase their access to publishing in English-medium outlets may be quite distinct from pedagogical implications for students in classrooms. The complexity of scholars’ academic writing practices mean that English writing and publishing are only part of their publishing efforts. In addition, the goal of ‘perfect’ English academic writing appears to be less of a serious issue for scholars than that of participating in networks of activity (see Results).The implications of this finding for pedagogy mean that it may be difficult to explicitly ‘teach’ professional scholars in classroom settings in ‘peripheral’ locations how to be successful in English-medium publishing. Further exploration is needed into alternative ways in which scholars can gain the knowledge they need for English-medium publishing, such as combining classroom or textbook instruction with opportunities for scholars to interact with ‘centre’-based scholars in their particular sub-disciplines, or facilitating collaboration in projects with scholars with greater experience in English-medium publishing.

Methods

Participant recruitment

Key aims in this phase of the project were to increase the number of participants in our existing sites and to establish a new research site in Portugal. We have been successful in meeting both these aims: in Slovakia, Hungary and Spain we recruited seven new participants and we have recruited 10 new participants in Portugal where we have now established strong institutional links. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the participants’ locations and academic disciplines. It has proved more difficult to recruit participants from education than from psychology within the timescale of this phase of the research. There are also less participants from Spain than originally anticipated due to the unexpected circumstances of several scholars. A future aim will be to secure more participants from education as well as increasing the number of Spanish scholars to 10 (see Future Research Priorities).

Table 1: Research participants’ locations and academic disciplines

Data collection

We have developed what we refer to as a ‘text-oriented ethnographic approach’ to data collection which involves collecting: a) ethnographic data, such as literacy history interviews, group discussions, email discussions, observations, meetings with librarians, institutional and historical documentary data; b) a large amount of scholars’ texts and scholars’ commentary on the production of these texts, in text-focused interviews.

During the 11 months of this phase of the research we visited each of the four research sites twice collecting a range of ethnographic data about the importance of academic publishing in English in different national and institutional contexts. With participating scholars, we conducted 65 interviews lasting from 30 to 120 minutes, bringing our total interviews to 124. All face to face interviews were transcribed and all email communication stored electronically. Interviews with participants were of two types: literacy history interviews and text focused interviews. Initially semi-structured literacy history interviews using a protocol were carried out in order to learn about participants’ research areas, literacy and language histories, access to resources, and views on writing in English. At this point in the research process, participants were requested to provide us with current and subsequent copies of any drafts of texts that they were preparing for publication in English.

Follow up text focused interviews and discussions- both face to face and via email- were prepared on the basis of key themes emerging from the initial interview and on preliminary analysis of texts. Specific interview questions varied according to the interests, experiences and immediate writing goals of the participants. For example, where a scholar had provided us with several drafts of a paper, we were able to identify key changes across these drafts using a text heuristic developed from close readings of the texts collected in the research (see Appendix 2). We then asked the writer questions about these changes in subsequent discussions in relation to the process and the target publication.

Broader themes emerging across the interviews were also further explored such as the reward structures in scholars’ institutions, their interactions with literacy brokers, their contributions to specific academic communities, and their personal networks. Given the importance of key literacy brokers in the production of texts, we additionally conducted interviews with three key literacy brokers currently located in the United Kingdom and the United States, and met with five librarians across all four research sites.

In this phase of the research we added 150 texts, to reach our current total of some 350 texts (see Table 2), and collected 100 pieces of written correspondence related to texts, such as reviewers’and editors’ comments.

Table 2: Data collected

Data Analysis

Data analysis has been carried out in two ways.Firstly each data source has been analysed independently:for example,analysing institutional documents to establish whether and how publishing in English is embedded in institutional structures; analysing interview data in order to construct profiles of all scholars (age, qualifications, research areas etc); analysing changes across drafts of texts in order to identify specific types of changes made. Secondly, analyses have been carried out across data sources in order to explore links across different data: for example, the pressure to publish in English has been explored from an institutional perspective (as represented in institutional documents and senior academics’ accounts) and individual scholars’ perspectives, drawing on interview data; scholars’ academic texts have been analysed alongside commentary on the production of those texts to explore the influence of different literacy brokers.

A key tool in drawing together different data sources are the individual case study notes which have been constructed about each scholar and his/her writing practices, research interests, national and intuitional contexts. Given the need for familiarity with each scholar’s research area and writing goals and the large amount of time consumed in on going discussions about the production of texts, each scholar is attached to one of the two main researchers Dr Lillis and Dr Curry. We have used a template in constructing detailed case studies in which ‘text histories’ constitute a large part. Text histories are detailed descriptions, drawn from analysis of interview transcripts and draft texts, of the issues arising, and decisions made, when drafting texts towards for publication. Results

Increasing pressure to publish in English

Most scholars report that pressure to publish in the medium of English is indeed increasing. This pressure is manifest in different ways, varying across contexts, from a more strictly codified system in use in some Slovak institutions, in which points awarded for each publication are tallied at year end, to a more diffuse system in Spain and Hungary, where appointment panels evaluate the status of scholars’ output according to publications rankings and citations indices. Such institutional reward systems entail a range of consequences for individual scholars and their departments. In some contexts the consequences are severe; for example in Slovakia, a scholar’s annual salary can be immediately reduced if his or her publications are deemed too few or of insufficient status. Consequences in other locations may be less immediately tangible but still have an impact on scholars’ opportunities for conducting future research or for professional advancement. In Spain, for example, following recent legislation, scholars will be required to pass an evaluation of their productivity that occurs every six years in order to supervise post-graduate students. In Portugal, international panels periodically evaluate the output of scholars and their departments; this process itself encourages scholars to publish in internationally known English-medium journals.

Scholars’ practices when writing for publication in English

Most participants in our study tend to draft their English medium texts predominantly in English, rather than writing in local languages and having texts translated.Scholars habitually read English-medium research scholarship and communicate internationally; thus in some domains they conduct a large part of their research work in English. Participants in multiple sites in both education and psychology engage in literacy practices such as compiling lists of phrases that they cull from English-language sources in their field; they then refer to these lists when drafting texts. Across all sites, some scholars use local translators or proof-readers to help with their writing; others serve this function themselves for co-authors, colleagues and post-graduates.

Scholars are investing much time and effort in writing in English, often with limited resources. Available resources vary on a continuum from Slovakia, with the least, to Spain with the most, but in all cases are usually restricted. The nature of these resources may be bibliographic (e.g. Internet and database access, journal subscription, book purchases, interlibrary loans), financial (e.g. funds for research fieldwork and support, or for travel for conferences or research meetings), or involve other people (e.g. ‘literacy brokers’). Institutions in Slovakia and Hungary have witnessed a decline in the financial support that was given to eastern Europe after the ‘Velvet Revolution’, which seriously affects the availability of key material resources: for example, some libraries find it difficult to pay for subscriptions to international journals. In Portugal and Spain, resources are often more available in comparison with eastern Europe, but are often much less than what many ‘centre’ scholars enjoy. A key resource is the extra time that most scholars require to write in English; they report that it takes up to twice as long to draft an English text.

Writing for a number of distinct communities

Whilst rewards for publishing in English may be considerable, scholars are also committed to publishing for a wide range of ‘communities’ in local languages and in some cases in other languages, and for both applied audiences (e.g., psychologists, teachers, and other practitioners) and academic audiences. Focusing specifically on the psychology scholars in our study, for

example, we have identified seven distinct types of communities (see Table 3). Scholars are committed to writing in their local languages in order to: a) disseminate their research findings to local academic and practitioner audiences; b) improve local practice in psychology and education, in some cases by introducing ideas and practices that scholars gain from their research reading and in others by disseminating the results of their locally based research; and c) support their local professional reputations, which enables them to develop local research networks, serve on institutional and governmental committees, and obtain research funding. There are indications of significant differences, however, between what is published in local and international contexts, in terms of content, style, methodology, and epistemology. This is a current focus in our data analysis.

Table 3. Communities for which multilingual psychology scholars are writing (See Output 1-submitted article)

Publishing within networks of colleagues and ‘literacy brokers’

Scholars’ academic writing for publication takes place as part of a complex network of activity rather than as isolated https://www.360docs.net/doc/15179845.html,works involve local colleagues and research collaborators who may or may not be involved in text production, and other scholars who act as conduits for information about research-related activities such as conferences, fellowships, grants, etc. Scholars’ networks function at local, regional, and international levels, sometimes spanning all three. In the process of moving from local research and writing to English-medium international publication, scholars’ publishing takes place as part of a complex network of activity.Many people within this network influence the construction of scholars’ texts writing for publication. These

‘literacy brokers’, who include translators, proofreaders, friends, and English-speaking academic colleagues, English-language specialists, editors and journal reviewers, assume different roles and influence the production of scholars’ texts in different ways. In some cases these ‘brokers’ are oriented primarily toward the problems and issues of the disciplinary content, while others focus chiefly on English-language issues as distinct from content, methodology, or epistemology. We are in the process of identifying the ways in which locally generated research data is presented and knowledge claims are made in writings aimed at high-status Anglo-American publications (see Appendix 1).

Activities

Invited Plenary Address

Professional academic writing by ‘periphery’ scholars: Interactions with ‘literacy brokers’ in the production of text. Plenary speakers at the Canadian Association of Teachers of Technical Writing conference, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, May 2003.

Refereed Conference Presentations

Writing for different ‘communities’: Multilingual scholars and the imperative to publish in English. British Association for Applied Linguistics, Leeds, UK, and AILA (International Association of Applied Linguistics), Ghent, Belgium, September 2003.

Learning from the writing practices of academics in multilingual contexts. European Association of Teachers of Academic Writing, Budapest, Hungary, June 2003.

Professional academic writing by ‘periphery’ scholars: Interactions with ‘literacy brokers’ in the production of text. Part of the symposium, ‘Language socialization, participation and membership

in communities of practice’. American Association of Applied Linguistics conference, Arlington, VA, United States, March 2003.

We are also planning to present a methodology paper at the First Ethnography and Education Scientific Meeting, University of Castilla-LaMancha, Spain, July 2004.

Seminar Presentations

Professional Academic Writing in a Global Context: Developing a Text Analysis Framework, Academic Literacies Group at the Institute of Education, University of London, March 2003. Workshops/seminars with users

We have formally disseminated findings in all of our sites. The format of the disseminations was designed in response to participants’ interests. In Hungary we conducted a seminar with academics and post-graduate students in the Department of Psychology of the Etvos Lorand University. In Slovakia, we gave a lecture to the Slovak Academy of Sciences. In Spain, we offered a seminar to the faculties of psychology and pedagogy at the University of Valencia. In Portugal, a seminar was conducted with academics and post-graduates both at the University of Lisbon. In each case we discussed both the findings of the research to date and the implications for scholars’ publishing practices (see Output 2). Sessions were advertised beyond participants’ institutions and were attended not only by participants but also by other members of their institutions and interested colleagues from other organizations.

Outputs

We have submitted a first article to TESOL Quarterly, a refereed journal. ‘Multilingual Scholars and the Imperative to Publish in English: Negotiating Interests, Demands, and Rewards’ (attached as Output 1).

Several other articles are in preparation in the following order of priority:

‘Professional academic writing by “periphery” scholars: Interactions with “literacy brokers” in the production of text,’ focuses on the influences on scholars’ text production of various ‘literacy brokers’. We are analysing cases where we have multiple drafts of scholars’ publications and input from literacy brokers to examine the nature of the interventions these ‘brokers’ make, and the effects of their interventions on the types of writing and construction of knowledge in the published texts. In some cases these ‘brokers’ are oriented primarily toward the problems and issues of the disciplinary content, while others are focusing chiefly on English-language issues. We are beginning to trace which kinds of orientation are most likely to lead to publication in high status Anglo-American journals. This paper will be submitted to Written Communication.

‘The role of networks in the academic writing practices of international scholars’ is planned to explore the networks in which scholars participate. This paper will draw on interview data with scholars to explore these questions: What are the mechanisms by which scholars gain and maintain access to particular professional networks? How do disciplinary or sub-disciplinary practices and linguistic knowledge interact and possibly affect scholars’ possibilities for participation? Do geographic, generational, gender or other demographic factors play differential roles in

participating in networks? This paper will be submitted to Journal of English for Academic Purposes.

Another planned article will undertake a contrastive analysis (Connor, 1996) of three sets of texts gathered from psychology scholars in Hungary. In these cases, scholars have written papers based on the same research for different audiences (applied and academic) and in different languages (both Hungarian and English). This analysis will enable us to consider whether features of scholars’ first language writing hinder their expression in English, as some contrastive rhetoric scholars have suggested, or whether, following Canagarajah (2002b), scholars seem to be making strategic choices about how they construct and present their work. This paper will be submitted to Journal of Second Language Writing.

When these articles are nearing completion we plan to draft a book proposal, as one publisher has already expressed interest. The book will frame the detailed analysis of text trajectories within the context of the global politics of academic knowledge production-that is, who gets to publish in what media, under what conditions and with what consequences?

In addition to academic outputs we have produced activities generated from the research in which to engage users (for an example, see Output 2).We aim to develop further practical activities in the future.

Impacts

Strong interest in this project has been expressed by a number of people and institutions. Both of our universities (the Open University and the University of Rochester) are committed to finding ways of drawing on the research to develop post-graduate and post-doctoral training programmes on professional academic writing. Specifically, the Open University is drawing on this research to pilot an Advanced Academic Literacy programme in March-May 2004 for post doctoral researchers who use English as a second or third language. In all of our research sites, interest has been expressed in having additional practical workshops. In Spain we are in contact with the university’s professional development office; we have established links with the British Council in Bratislava and Lisbon with a view to exploring how our research might inform their programmes; in Hungary we have met with Peter Medgyes, an English language specialist who is now Minister of Education to discuss practical implications of our work.

Future Research Priorities

Having established a large database and strong relationships with our participants, and being aware of the long lead times involved in scholarly publishing, we see it as imperative to continue this research for the foreseeable future. Future areas of research would focus on the following:?Securing more participants from Spain. This is already in progress and will ensure greater representation across the research overall;

?Increase participation from education scholars. We consider it important to recruit more education scholars as this will provide a comparative disciplinary dimension to our focus on academic publishing in English. We hypothesize that a key reason for lower recruitment to the project from education scholars is that there is less overt pressure to publish in

international contexts. However, we also hypothesize that this pressure will increase over the next few years given a) new national requirements faced by academics, and b) greater involvement of scholars in EU funded research projects;

?Contrastive rhetorical analysis of texts across contexts and languages. As mentioned in Outputs, above, the research is making a contribution to the field of contrastive rhetoric by enabling comparisons of similar texts written in both scholars’ first languages and in

English. To date, we have focused on contrastive analysis of texts written in Hungarian and English. Future research would focus on examples in Slovak, Spanish and Portuguese;?English as an academic lingua franca. Our participants are increasingly participating in EU-funded research projects, a growing phenomenon as many eastern and central

European countries are poised to become EU members. In many of these projects, whilst not the only official EU language, English is often used as the lingua franca in

publications. To explore the nature of English as an academic lingua franca within an expanding Europe, we see the need to collect and categorise the features of academic

written English being used in different types of publications in various contexts (e.g.

research proposals, formal and informal correspondence, reports and scholarly

publications). Constructing an electronic database of such written texts would enable

computer aided analysis of the linguistic features of written academic English(es);?Explorations of World Englishes. As our data includes a range of texts in different stages of preparation for publication in contexts beyond Europe, we plan to explore further the

linguistic variation represented in these published texts as indications of what is deemed acceptable for publication in ‘English’. We will be looking for patterns of usage, for

example, of English pronouns, which are often seen as indicators of ‘non-native’ or ‘non-standard’ writing;

?Learning English academic writing practices. As institutions of higher education across the EU are responding to the recommendations of the 1999 Bologna Declaration to move

toward instituting common practices and policies, there is a pressing need to learn more about how post-graduates across the EU are inducted into academic writing practices. It would thus be useful to collect additional data related to this question: In what ways do scholars working in non-English speaking contexts support their post-graduate students in learning the English academic writing practices that are key to becoming academics who can participate on a global level? As scholars in the study embody a range of expertise in relation to their disciplinary subject area and to their English proficiency and academic writing practices, this knowledge would have practical implications for post-graduate

training and make a contribution to sociocultural theories of learning by re-examining the notions of ‘expert’ and ‘novice’;

?Implications for teaching. As discussed above, scholars’ academic English writing involves not just gaining linguistic expertise, but becoming involved in the practices specific to particular communities. It would be useful to explore further the implications of this

finding for pedagogy and practice, as it may be difficult to ‘teach’ professional scholars in classroom settings in ‘peripheral’ locations about the keys to successful English-medium publishing. Our pilot study included an on-line writing workshop that proved difficult for scholars to participate in. Further exploration is thus needed into alternative ways in which scholars can gain the knowledge they need for successful English-medium publishing.

References

Baynham, M. (1993). Code switching and mode switching: Community interpreters and mediators of literacy. In B. V. Street (Ed.). Cross-cultural approaches to literacy (pp. 294-314).

Cambridge: University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason: On the theory of action. Stanford: University Press. Canagarajah, A.S. (2002a). A geopolitics of academic writing. Pittsburgh: University Press.

______ (2002b). Critical academic writing and multilingual students. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing.

Cambridge: University Press.

Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: University Press.

Flowerdew, J. (2002). Ethnographically inspired approaches to the study of academic discourse. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 235- 252). London: Longman/Pearson

Education.

______(2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the nonnative-English-speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 127-150.

______(1999).Writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong.

Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing,8(2), 123-145.

Gibbs, W.W. (1995, May). Information have-nots: A vicious circle isolates many Third World scientists. Scientific American, 8-9.

Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English. London: British Council.

Kachru, B. (2001). World Englishes. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.). Concise Encyclopedia of Sociolinguistics. (pp.519-524). New York: Elsevier.

Kalman, J. (1999). Writing on the plaza: Mediated literacy practice among scribes and clients in Mexico City. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Yakhontova, T. (1997). The signs of a new time: academic writing in ESP curricula of Ukranian universities. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles of academic 12, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

APPENDIX 1

TRACING THE IMPACT OF LITERACY BROKERS ON THE PRODUCTION OF

TEXTS

1.The multiple roles of literacy brokers

Literacy brokers may play one or more of these roles, at different times:

Research-related

?Collaborate with participants in conducting research, applying for conferences, making presentations together;

?Support participants in above efforts, e.g. by advising on research design, inviting to apply for conferences, projects, etc.

Network-related

?Passing on information about grants, conferences, research opportunities;

?Making introductions to others in field;

?Helping secure funding for travel to conferences, scholarships, etc.

?Inviting participants to work on journals as reviewers or editorial board members.

Text-related

?Co-authoring grant applications, journal articles, reports, etc.

?Proof-reading/editing writing by participants;

?Interpreting feedback from journal reviewers/editors for participants in the process of revising their writing.

2.Text related brokering: characteristics of key types of literacy brokers

Literacy brokers are of three main types:

Academic professional: Literacy brokers who are academic collaborators in the same specialist subfield (Becher 1994) subfield specialists, or academics in the same discipline discipline experts. They may be speakers of English as a first language EL1, or as a second or third language EL2, or speakers of English as a lingua franca ELF.

Linguistic professional: Literacy brokers whose profession involves them focusing on the linguistic medium. These are translators who are speakers of English as a first language EL1, as second language EL2 or speakers of English as a lingua franca ELF.

‘Native speaker’ : Literacy brokers who are ‘native speakers’ of English such as friends or colleagues who are native speakers of English and who offer support with the production of texts.

3.Literacy brokers and their orientation to text production: provisional framework

Note: EL1= Speaker of English as a first language; EL2= Speaker of English as a second language; ELF= Speaker of English as lingua franca

APPENDIX 2

A HEURISTIC TOOL FOR USE AND DISCUSSION BY ANALYSTS (RESEARCHERS AND TRANSLATORS) WHEN TRACKING CHANGES ACROSS DRAFTS OF TEXTS