Research writing: problems and pedagogies
Abstract
Writing remains significantly under-theorized within research degree programs in universities. Yet there is clearly more at stake than the application of generic structural rules or guidelines for writing research. Whatever the discipline, these mechanics are inadequate to account for the complexities of writing faced by doctoral students. This article takes up the challenge of research writing as a social, situated practice and calls for it to be embraced as such within research education. The article identifies problems of policy, theory and pedagogy in relation to research writing. It then examines recent initiatives, undertaken by the authors and others, in the formation of research writing groups, in an attempt to address some of these problems. Despite wide variation, these groups have in common a strong reliance on the pedagogical principles of identification and peer review, community, and writing as ‘normal business’ in the doing of research. These are advanced as key principles for a broader conceptualization of the requirements for research writing.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Research writing is a social and situated practice within research education, not a generic technical skill.
“Aitchison and Lee (2006) argue that research writing is a social and situated practice within research education, not a generic technical skill.”
From From production to verification: generative AI, doctoral formation, and the leadership of digital education (2026) · cites this paper as Aitchison and Lee, 2006
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 39 · Cited by 384
- Authors
- Aitchison, C., & Lee, A.
- Affiliations
- Western Sydney University (AU)
- University of Technology Sydney (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Lee, Alison
- Venue
- Teaching in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2006-07
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 265-278
- ISSN
- 1356-2517 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-1294
- OpenAlex
- W2079445865
- Cited by
- 384
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 17
- FWCI
- 13.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Teaching in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
- OPUS - Open Publications of UTS Scholars (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Doctoral Education Challenges and Solutions
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
- Keywords
- academic writing, doctoral education, writing instruction, writing as social practice, peer review, writing groups, identification
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review