Academic Writing for Graduate Students, 6.0 credits

Att skriva akademisk text på engelska, 6.0 hp

0FIEI01

Course level

Third-cycle Education

Description

The course is full and registration has closed.

Kursen är nu full och anmälan har stängt för hösten 2025.

Proposed Schedule

Week 41 9th October (13:15-17)

Introducing your research work - tapping into the research and societal relevance

Docent Janet Johansson, Prof. Jonas Söderlund

Week 42 14th October (13:15-17)

Writing a doctoral thesis: experience and inspirations.

Jonas Söderlund

Week 43 21st Oct. (13:15-17)

Writing literature review systematically through problematization and gap- spotting: making your research interesting and relevant

Janet Johansson

Week 45 6th November (13:15-17)

Introduction to journal publication from the author, reviewer and the editorial perspective.

Jonas Söderlund /Janet Johansson

Week 46 10th Nov. (13:15-17)

Writing methodology

Janet Johansson

Week 47 20th Nov. (13:15-17:00)

Writing result/analysis, discussion and conclusions

Janet Johansson

Week 48 24th November (13:15-17)

Abstract, Coherence - Writing Workshop- Writing up a full paper

Janet Johansson/ Jonas Söderlund

Week 49

Sending a full paper draft to your peer by 18:00 on 5th Dec.

Week 50 10th December (13:15-17)

Presentation of full paper draft with peer review comments

Janet Johansson


### Introducing your research work and understanding the PhD process

Reading list

  • Giltrow, J., Burgoyne, D., Gooding, R., & Sawatsky, M. (2005). Academic Writing. An Introduction. Peterborough, ON, Canada: Broadview Press
  • Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to writing*, ELT Journal *54(2), 153-160
  • Cotton, D., & Gresty, K. (2006). Reflecting on the think-aloud method for evaluating e-learning*. British Journal of Educational Technology*, 37(1), pp. 45-54.
  • Eppler, M. J. (2006). A comparison between concept maps, mind maps, conceptual diagrams, and visual metaphors as complementary tools for knowledge construction and sharing. *Information Visualization *5(3), pp. 202-210.
  • Rao, Z. (2007). Training in brainstorming and developing writing skills. *ELT Journal *61(2), pp. 100-106.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/writingforresearch/2017/07/17/how-to-write-paragraphs-in-** **research-texts-articles-books-and-phds/

Writing literature review systematically through problematization and gap- spotting: Making your research interesting and relevant

Reading list

  • Younger, P. (2004). Using the internet to conduct a literature search. Nurs Stand 19(6): 45-51
  • Godin, K., Stapleton, J., Kirkpatrick, S.I. et al. Applying systematic review search methods to the grey literature: a case study examining guidelines for school-based breakfast programs in Canada. Syst Rev 4, 138 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0125-0
  • Abdullah Ramdhani, Muhammad Ali Ramdhani, Abdusy Syakur Amin ((2014), Writing a Literature Review Research Paper:A step-by-step approach, International Journal of Basic and Applied Science,3(01), pp. 47-56.
  • Butler, N., Delaney, H., & Spoelstra, S. (2015). Problematizing ‘relevance’in the business school: The case of leadership studies. British Journal of Management, 26(4), 731-744.
  • Knights, D., & Omanovic, V. (2015). Rethinking diversity in organizations and society. The Oxford handbook of diversity in organizations, 83-108.
  • Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. (2011). Ways of constructing research questions: gap-

spotting or problematization?. Organization, 18(1), 23-44.

Introduction to journal publication – review processes and the editor’s perspective

**Reading list **

  • Dobusch, L., Plotnikof, M., & Wenzel, M. (2025). Reviewing is caring! Revaluing a critical, but invisibilized, underappreciated, and exploited academic practice. Organization, 13505084251343672.
  • Geraldi, J., Locatelli, G., & Söderlund, J. (2025). Author, Reviewer, Editor: A Generative Conversation. Project Management Journal, 56(2), 163-172.

Methodology and research ethics

Reading list

  • Aspers, P. (2009). Empirical phenomenology: A qualitative research approach (The Cologne Seminars). Indo-pacific journal of phenomenology, 9(2).
  • Geertz, C. (1972). Deep Play. Notes on the Balinese Cockfight. Daedalus 101/1: 1-37.
  • Geertz, Clifford (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books Lewis, Krystina & Graham, Ian & Boland, Laura & Stacey, Dawn. (2021). Writing a
  • compelling integrated discussion: a guide for integrated discussions in article-based theses and dissertations. International journal of nursing education scholarship. 18. 10.1515/ijnes- 2020-0057.
  • Hedgecoe, A. (2008). Research ethics review and the sociological research relationship. Sociology, 42(5), 873-886.

https://www.vr.se/download/18.68c009f71769c7698a41df/1610103120390/Forskningsetiska_ principer_VR_2002.pdf

During the class:

  • To discuss how you may write the methodology description with ideas from Aspers’ (2009) work.
  • To relate your project to Lewis and colleagues’ (2021) work for writing a ‘compelling, integrated discussion’. (workshop)
  • To discuss possible ethical dilemmas in research and writing.
  • To consider how to formulate these dilemmas in text addressing crucial ethical concepts (workshop).

Writing result/analysis, discussion and conclusions by adopting different language styles

**Writing workshop – to ensure coherence, focus and good flow of the text **

  • For this workshop, we will highlight the importance of coherence.
  • We will start by writing an abstract that captures the essences of the full paper
  • Participants will use around 1 hour to develop the remaining part of the paper
  • The workshop will be concluded by sharing the writing experience focusing on coherence.

Reading List

  • Michaelson, Herbert, How to Write & Publish Engineering Papers and Reports, Oryx Press, 1990. Chapter 6 discusses abstracts.

Final presentation and peer review

  • For this presentation, the peer (not the author) will present the paper draft from a reviewer’s perspective.
  • The review comments must engage with relevant course content.
  • The review comments must be constructive and reflexive.
  • Each presentation will be ~10 minutes, followed by 5 minutes of responses from the author.

Contact

Grading

Two-grade scale