Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Processes of academic source-based writing in graduate school : a socio-pedagogical approach to students'… Kowkabi, Nasrin 2019

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


24-ubc_2019_may_kowkabi_nasrin.pdf [ 3.53MB ]
JSON: 24-1.0378061.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0378061-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0378061-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0378061-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0378061-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0378061-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0378061-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

  PROCESSES OF ACADEMIC SOURCE-BASED WRITING IN GRADUATE SCHOOL: A SOCIO-PEDAGOGICAL APPROACH TO STUDENTS’ INTERACTIONS WITH SOURCE TEXTS  by  Nasrin Kowkabi  B.A., Shiraz Azad University, 2000 M.A., Shiraz State University, 2003     A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY   in   THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES  (Teaching English as a Second Language)      THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  (Vancouver)   April 2019    © Nasrin Kowkabi, 2019    ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the dissertation entitled:  Processes of Academic Source-Based Writing in Graduate School: A Socio-Pedagogical Approach to Students' Interactions with Source Texts  submitted by Nasrin Kowkabi in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Teaching English as a Second Language  Examining Committee: Dr. Ling Shi Supervisor  Dr. Ryuko Kubota Supervisory Committee Member  Dr. Margaret Early Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Anthony Paré University Examiner Dr. Beth Haverkamp University Examiner Dr. Yongyan Li External Examiner       iii Abstract Source-based writing is replete with decisions about what to include from others’ work and how to include it. The processes of source selection and source integration are integral yet occluded aspects of writing from sources (Pecorari, 2006). Issues pertaining to appropriate versus inappropriate source use have been among the controversial topics of discussion among university students and instructors (e.g., as noted in Harwood & Petrić, 2011, and Shi, 2016), yet current scholarship is still in need of an explicit understanding of the process of source-based writing—in particular, among graduate-level students as emerging scholars in their fields. In light of such exigency and to better understand the source-based writing practices of student writers at graduate levels, my doctoral research project aimed at exploring the processes of source selection and source integration in the research-paper writing of eight domestic and international Master’s and PhD students in the field of education at a major Canadian university. Data included drafts of research papers students prepared as part of their course requirements, related source texts, three rounds of text-based interviews with students, and individual text-based interviews with their course instructors. Employing a socio-pedagogical approach by interweaving the conceptual frameworks of Community of Practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991), Forms of Capital (Bourdieu, 1991), and Dialogism (Bakhtin, 1986), this study provided the ground to cross-examine not only each participant’s writing progress over multiple drafts, but also to compare the practices of the Master’s and doctoral participants as they strived to join the expert dialogues in their communities through collecting acceptable forms of textual capital.    iv Macro analyses of data depicted perspectives of participating graduate students toward source-based writing, their dilemmas and solutions in the process of source use, contributing factors to their problematic and/or successful source-use practices, and available support to them. Micro analyses of these Master's and doctoral students’ written texts and oral accounts identified a wide range of motivations for source selection and purposes for the use of various types of source integration in their research-paper writing. This study offers insights for institutional and educational action plans to support students’ interactions with source texts.                        v Lay Summary Graduate students in general need to write research papers that incorporate information previously written by other experts. Some research has been done in this area, but not much research has explored how graduate students from different educational backgrounds and at different academic levels incorporate expert information into their course paper drafts, and how their instructors evaluate them in this process. This doctoral research project contributes to the gap by (a) interviewing local and international Master’s and PhD students and their instructors about how these graduate students paraphrased, summarized, and directly quoted source texts, and (b) analyzing multiple drafts of their course papers. Findings show (a) that students chose and used expert materials differently in their papers and the differences were mainly related to their academic levels, and (b) that instructors played a significant role in students’ process of research writing by supporting and providing feedback on their source-use practices.  vi Preface This dissertation is the original, unpublished, and independent work of its author, Nasrin Kowkabi. The research project was reviewed and approved by the University of British Columbia’s Research Ethics Board (certificate #H13-00308), under the original title of “Textual Borrowing and Citation Practices in Academic Writing: A Multiple Case Study of Graduate Students in Education.” vii Table of Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................................. iii Lay Summary ........................................................................................................................... v Preface Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. vii List of Tables .........................................................................................................................xiv List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ xv Acknowledgements ...............................................................................................................xvi Dedication ............................................................................................................................... xx Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Rationale of Study ................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Purpose of Study ...................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Terminological and Conceptual Clarifications ........................................................ 5 1.5 Research Questions .................................................................................................. 9 1.6 Organization of Dissertation .................................................................................... 9 Chapter 2: Conceptual Framework ............................................................................... 14 2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................ 14 2.2 Community of Practice and Second-Language Writing ........................................ 15 2.2.1 Notion of Community of Practice................................................................. 15 2.2.2 Legitimate Peripheral Participation in Communities of Practice ................. 17  viii 2.2.3 Second-Language Academic Writers in Communities of Practice .............. 18 2.2.4 Communities of Practice and Source Use in Second-Language Academic Writing ................................................................................................................... 19 2.3 Bourdieu’s Forms of Capital and Second-Language Writing ............................... 22 2.3.1 Concepts of Habitus, Capital, Language, and Power ................................... 22 2.3.2 Social Capital, Cultural Capital, and Novice Academic Writing Practices .. 24 2.3.3 Bourdieu’s Concepts in Academic Writing Communities of Practice ......... 26 2.4 Bakhtin’s View of Language and Second-Language Writing ............................... 28 2.4.1 The Dialogic Nature of Utterance in Bakhtin’s View of Language ............. 29 2.4.2 Bakhtin’s View of Language and Second-Language Writing Research ...... 30 2.4.3 Bakhtin’s View of Language and Source Use in Second-Language Writing ................................................................................................................... 31 2.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 34 Chapter 3: Literature Review......................................................................................... 36 3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................ 36 3.2 Traditional and Alternative Scholarly Views on Student Source Use ................... 37 3.3 Seminal Empirical Studies on Source-Based Writing ........................................... 41 3.3.1 Source-Based Writing Involving L2 or Both L1 and L2 Students ............... 42 Novice L2 Students Under Scrutiny ................................................ 43 L1 and L2 Students’ Writing from Sources ..................................... 48 3.3.2 Source-Based Writing Involving Students at Different Academic Levels ... 51 Undergraduate and Graduate Students’ Writing from Sources ....... 51 Master’s or Doctoral Student: Does It Make a Difference? ............ 53 ix 3.3.3 Citation Motivations and Purposes Among University Student Writers ...... 55 3.3.4 Instructors’ Views on Students’ Source Use ................................................ 59 Instructors as Readers of Their Students’ Writing .......................... 60 Instructors as Readers of Another Group of Students’ Writing ...... 61 3.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 63 Chapter 4: Methodology ................................................................................................. 65 4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................ 65 4.2 Design of Study ..................................................................................................... 65 4.3 Research Site ......................................................................................................... 66 4.4 Student Recruitment and Profiles .......................................................................... 67 4.4.1 Master’s Students.......................................................................................... 67 4.4.2 PhD Students ................................................................................................ 68 4.5 Instructor Profiles .................................................................................................. 69 4.6 Challenges and Rewards in Data Collection Process ............................................ 72 4.7 Data Sources .......................................................................................................... 73 4.7.1 Course Documents and Term-Paper Drafts .................................................. 74 4.7.2 Text-Based Interviews .................................................................................. 74 Text-Based Interviews with Students .............................................. 75 Text-Based Interviews with Instructors ........................................... 76 4.8 Data Collection Procedure ..................................................................................... 76 4.9 Data Analysis Procedure........................................................................................ 77 4.10 Ethical Considerations ......................................................................................... 81 4.11 Researcher Positionality ...................................................................................... 81 x 4.12 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 85 Chapter 5: Source-Based Writing by Master’s Students: Moving from Margins to the Core of Community ................................................................................................... 86 5.1 Overview of Chapter.............................................................................................. 86 5.2 Road-Mapping ....................................................................................................... 87 5.2.1 Term-Paper Writing Plans and Support Expected ........................................ 93 5.2.2 Summary: “The Elephant in the Dark” ......................................................... 97 5.3 Drafting the Paper: Drifting to the Core ................................................................ 99 5.3.1 What to Include, What to Exclude: The Process of Source Selection and Motivation............................................................................................................ 100 Alice: I Used These Sources to Show What I Say Is Important. ... 101 Sally: I Used a Lot of Citations to Show I Have Read a Lot. ........ 103 Wendy: I Cited These Sources to Get Support. ............................. 104 Elena: What Felt Good Often Worked! ......................................... 105 5.3.2 Types and Purposes of Source Integration ................................................. 106 Alice’s Source Integration ............................................................. 108 Wendy’s Source Integration .......................................................... 110 Sally’s Source Integration.............................................................. 113 Elena’s Source Integration ............................................................. 115 5.3.3 Summary ..................................................................................................... 117 5.4 Modifications in the Final Draft .......................................................................... 119 5.4.1 Source-Use Modifications in Alice’s Final Draft ....................................... 121 5.4.2 Source-Use Modifications in Sally’s Final Draft ....................................... 123 xi 5.4.3 Source-Use Modifications in Wendy’s Final Draft .................................... 125 5.4.4 Source-Use Modifications in Elena’s Final Draft ...................................... 127 5.4.5 Summary ..................................................................................................... 128 5.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 130 Chapter 6: Source-Based Writing by Doctoral Students: Scholars Emerging in Text.................................................................................................................................. 133 6.1 Overview of Chapter............................................................................................ 133 6.2 When Old Capital Meets New: Emergent Scholars’ Writing Plans .................... 134 6.2.1 Term-Paper Writing Plans and Support Expected ...................................... 138 6.2.2 Summary: Capital to Be Collected ............................................................. 143 6.3 Drafting the Paper: Crafting the Capital .............................................................. 144 6.3.1 Why They Picked What They Picked: Source Selection and Motivation .. 146 Arman: I Selected Sources to Get New Information. .................... 146 Essi: I Used Sources to Show Respect to My Instructor’s Choices. ................................................................................................................... 148 Linda: I Started with My Instructor’s Book to Learn from Her. ... 148 Jeff: I Used Course Readings to Find Something of Interest. ....... 149 6.3.2 Types and Purposes of Source Integration ................................................. 152 Arman’s Source Integration ........................................................... 155 Essi’s Source Integration ............................................................... 158 Linda’s Source Integration ............................................................ 160 Jeff’s Source Integration ................................................................ 162 6.3.3 Summary ..................................................................................................... 165 xii 6.4 Modifications in Final Drafts............................................................................... 166 6.4.1 Modifications in Arman’s Final Draft ........................................................ 168 6.4.2 Modifications in Essi’s Final Draft............................................................. 173 6.4.3 Modifications in Linda’s Final Draft .......................................................... 174 6.4.4 Modifications in Jeff’s Final Draft ............................................................. 176 6.4.5 Summary ..................................................................................................... 178 6.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 179 Chapter 7: Instructors as Audience of Graduate Students’ Source-Based Writing181 7.1 Overview of Chapter............................................................................................ 181 7.2 The Dialogue on the Text: What Matters Most to the Expert Audience? ........... 182 7.2.1 Mentorship Matters: Multi-Level Academic Mentoring; Possibilities and Constraints ........................................................................................................... 184 7.2.2 Helping Students Write with More Authority ............................................ 191 7.2.3 Preparatory Strategies for Appropriate Source Use.................................... 195 7.2.4 Do Disciplinary and Language Backgrounds Matter?................................ 200 7.3 Summary .............................................................................................................. 202 7.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 203 Chapter 8: Conclusions and Implications ................................................................... 205 8.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 205 8.2 Discussion of Major Findings .............................................................................. 205 8.3 Theoretical and Methodological Contributions ................................................... 207 8.4 Implications for Policy and Praxis ....................................................................... 208 8.4.1 Course Instructors ....................................................................................... 209  xiii 8.4.2 Policy-Makers ............................................................................................. 211 8.5 Limitations of the Study ...................................................................................... 214 8.6 Future Research Directions.................................................................................. 214 References ............................................................................................................................. 217 Appendices............................................................................................................................ 230 Appendix A Taxonomy of Citation Purposes and Their Definitions.............230 Appendix B  Letter of Initial Contact..............................................................234 Appendix C  Consent Form for Students..........................................................236 Appendix D  Consent Form for Instructors......................................................240 Appendix E  Interview Guide for Students......................................................244 Appendix F Interview Guide for Instructors...................................................247   xiv List of Tables Table 4.1: Master’s Participant Backgrounds ......................................................................... 68 Table 4.2: Doctoral Participant Backgrounds ......................................................................... 69 Table 4.3: Instructor Profiles .................................................................................................. 71 Table 5.1: Master's Students' Final Paper Requirements ........................................................ 93 Table 5.2: Specifications of Master’s Students’ Initial Drafts (First Interview) .................... 94 Table 5.3: Specifications of Master’s Student While-Writing Drafts (Second Interview) ..... 99 Table 5.4: Types of Source Integration in Master’s Participants’ First Drafts ..................... 107 Table 5.5: Master’s Students’ Purposes for Using the Three Types of Source Integration . 108 Table 5.6: Specifications of Master’s Students’ Final Drafts (Third Interview) .................. 119 Table 5.7: Specifications of Master’s Students’ Term Papers Across Two Drafts .............. 121 Table 6.1: PhD Students’ Final-Paper Requirements ........................................................... 139 Table 6.2: Specifications of PhD Students’ Initial Outlines and Expected Support (First Interview) .............................................................................................................................. 140 Table 6.3: Specifications of PhD Students’ While-Writing Drafts (Second Interview)....... 145 Table 6.4: Types of Source Integration in PhD Participants’ First Drafts............................ 152 Table 6.5: PhD Students’ Purposes for Using the Three Types of Source Integration ........ 154 Table 6.6: Specifications of PhD Students’ Final Drafts (Third Interview) ......................... 166 Table 6.7: Specifications of PhD Students’ Term Papers Across Two Drafts ..................... 167 Table 7.1: Specifications of Instructor Comments on Student Final Term Papers .............. 183     xv List of Figures Figure 2.1: Visual Representation of the Interrelation of the Three Socio-Cultural Frames . 15 Figure 4.1: Macro- and Micro-Analyses of Data.................................................................... 80     xvi Acknowledgements As I am reaching the end of my doctoral journey, there are many people that I would like to express my gratitude to. First and foremost, I am immensely grateful to my supervisor, Professor Ling Shi, for her interest in my research ideas, her outstanding mentorship, unwavering support and trust in me. In the past years, she supported my attendance at various local and international conferences, engaged me in her research projects, and provided me the opportunity to learn from her expertise through presenting and publishing together. Thank you so much, Ling, for opening this novel and rewarding window to my life! I would also like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my current committee members, Dr. Ryuko Kubota and Dr. Margaret Early, and to my past committee member, Dr. Stephen Carey, for their invaluable comments on my drafts. Ryuko and Margaret, your critical questions and insightful feedback have enriched my work in new ways. I would also wish to express my thankfulness to my university examiners, Dr. Anthony Paré and Dr. Beth Haverkamp; and my external examiner, Dr. Yongyan Li. I truly appreciate your interest in my study. Your scholarly comments and questions have significantly strengthened my work. The completion of this research was made possible by the dedication and genuine interest of the participating Master’s and doctoral students and their instructors. Your trust and openness helped me shape this study as it is. I learned a lot from all of you and am thankful to every one of you forever. I am grateful for being advised and taught by an esteemed community of scholars at UBC and in the Department of Language and Literacy Education (LLED). In particular, I benefited tremendously from the courses taught by Dr. Victoria Purcell-Gates, Dr. Theresa Rogers, Dr. Ryuko Kubota, Dr. Margaret Early, Dr. Patricia Duff, and, most recently, Dr.   xvii Anthony Paré. Your mentorship, wisdom, and advice have been instrumental in my development and success in my academic, professional, and family life. I also acknowledge and appreciate the kind support of LLED staff in understanding and managing departmental and institutional procedures. Lisa Altan, Alya Zhukova, Lia Cosco, Laurie Reynolds, Chris Fernandez, Ana Susnjara, and Effiam Yung—thank you for all your support. During my PhD program, I have had the privilege of working with a tremendously supportive teaching team within the UBC-Ritsumeikan Programs. I do not have enough words to appreciate the professional mentorship of Dr. Sandra Zappa-Hollman and Dr. Reginald D’Silva over the years. You have supported me in so many ways beyond my imaginings and have patiently guided and inspired me as I passed through stages of my doctoral studies, my teaching and coordinating roles, and my family life. I would also like to thank Dr. Ryan Deschambault and Ms. Sheri Wenman for sharing many memories and stories; I have benefited a lot from your timely insights and encouragements. My colleagues, Dr. Joel Heng Hartse, Dr. Rae Jui-Ping Lin, Dr. Bong-gi Sohn, Dr. Won Kim, Dr. Alfredo Ferreira, Dr. Tomoyo Okuda, Dr. Ismaeil Fazel, Dr. Ai Mizuta, Dr. Victoria Surtees, and Dr. Anna Dong were endlessly generous with their time and willingness to discuss issues related to my doctoral research and much more. Warm thanks to Angela Moon, Junghyun Hwag, John Haggerty, Klara Abdi, Ava Becker-Zayas, and Caleb Lee for all of the wonderful collaborative teaching moments over several courses. Last, but not least, thank you to all my students in the UBC-Ritsumeikan Programs who have cheered me up over the years and showed me the importance and relevance of my research topic through their ongoing inquiries on source use and research writing.   xviii It has been a privilege to be surrounded and supported by many gifted peers at UBC, in LLED, and in my doctoral cohort. While it is impossible to recognize each of them here, I will always cherish their friendship. I would, however, like to mention, from my cohort, Liz Chiang, Dr. Tim Anderson, and Dr. Graham Lea. You have been true sources of support during my first years of studies and beyond. Also, I am grateful for the friendship of Dr. Ji Eun Kim, Harini Rajagopal, Natalia Balyasnikova, Patricia Liu Baergen, Jun Ma, Marziyeh Yousefi (my good friend from the good old days!), Azadeh Mousavian, Shekooh Behroozian, Maryam Shojaee, Dr. Zahra Komeilian, Marjan Ebneshahdi, and Ms. Amin, who has been like a supportive mother whose wisdom has helped me very much along the way; Thank you for all of the insightful Rumi conversations.  This milestone was achieved through the generous support of UBC’s Multi-year Doctoral Fellowship. I am also grateful to the Faculty of Education and to LLED for their financial support in the form of awards, grants, and teaching and research opportunities. I especially appreciate the many teaching opportunities I have had within UBC- Ritsumeikan Programs. I am immensely thankful to many of my family members and friends who have supported me, literally, from the other side of the globe! First and foremost, I am deeply grateful to my parents, who taught me perseverance and persistence in reaching my goals. To my mother, who has constantly kept my spirits high, your visits to us—despite all of your discomforts—have made my family and academic life much more manageable. To my father, who passed away while I was writing my comprehensive exams; I will never forget your last words on the importance of my education to you. I miss you so much and wish I could have you beside me at this time. I also deeply miss my parents-in law, who were   xix always so kind and supportive to me and who passed away before a final farewell was possible. To my sister, Mahboobeh, and her family, whose ongoing encouragements and early morning WhatsApp chats helped me to continue despite all hardships, thank you! To my brothers, Adel, Bahram, and Shahram and their families, and my sisters-in law, Mahnaz and Behnaz, thank you for your endless support from far away. To my cousins, Atefeh, Fatemeh, Leila, Parivash, Naaser, Malihe and Mahdis—thank you for your regular check-ins and kind messages; I feel so blessed to have you all in my life. I should also appreciate the support of my previous professors and current family friends, Dr. Sadighi, Dr. Riazi, and Dr. Bagheri and their families for being a source of encouragement from long ago. Finally, the successful completion of this project would be difficult to imagine without the support of my immediate family here in Vancouver. To Saeed, thank you for encouraging me to go on this journey, for putting up with my absences from family life, and for sharing your study times with me. I look forward to the completion of your doctoral degree soon and wish you all the best with your future adventures! To my kind-hearted son, Nima, I am grateful for your caring and curious check-ins on me during the long hours of computer work to make sure that I was doing OK, and thank you for reminding me that this would actually come to an end someday. Nima, you have literally grown up while I have done this degree. Watching you mature into a brilliant young man has given me much hope for the future because you are in it! To my daughter, Ana, who joined me toward the end of my doctoral journey, your pure smiles and shiny eyes have given me much energy to finish this. Your presence in my life always warms my heart, and I do look forward to many years of playing and learning together!     xx Dedication          To those who have nurtured my mind and my heart in countless ways  throughout this journey and beyond…    1 Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Background Every year an increasing number of local and international students pursue their graduate studies at Canadian universities (Anderson, 2015), hoping for a brighter academic and professional path ahead. During the first years of study, international students, like their North American counterparts, are required by graduate programs to undertake a certain number of graduate level courses. One requirement for the successful completion of coursework is drafting term papers built on existing scholarship in the field. Integral to the practice of integrating literature is the ability to continually make decisions about how to select and use sources, creating a balance between one’s own words and ideas and those of others. Yet, there is no simple and straightforward path for novice writers to learn how to make these decisions (Shi, 2016). The challenge of striking the right balance between using one’s own ideas and words, and those of authors of source texts, without distorting the original intended meaning or crossing the line into inappropriate practices (i.e., plagiarism), is deemed to be significant (Abasi, Akbari, & Graves, 2006; Pecorari, 2006; Polio & Shi, 2012). For novice academic writers, as newcomers to a scholarly community of practice (CoP; Lave & Wenger, 1991), the employment of other authors’ work in their own writing is replete with dilemmas and potential pitfalls due to the unclear dividing line between appropriate and inappropriate source-use practices (Pecorari, 2003, 2016; Shi, 2016). Awareness and resourcefulness of course instructors—the experts in the field—are pivotal in helping students learn how to write from source texts in order to collect relevant forms of capital (Bourdieu, 1991) and establish authorial identity (Elander et al., 2010; Hyland, 2002; Ivanič, 1998; Matsuda, 2015) in a range of academic writing venues including in their term-  2 paper writing. However, course instructors, as the holders of appropriate textual capital (Starfield, 2002), appear to take disparate stances towards students’ source-use attempts (e.g., Pecorari & Shaw, 2012).  1.2 Rationale of Study For a long time, issues pertaining to appropriate versus inappropriate source-based writing have been among the most controversial topics of discussion among university students, instructors, and scholars (e.g., Macdonald & Carroll, 2006; McCabe & Katz, 2009; Storm & Storm, 2007), yet current scholarship is still in need of an explicit understanding of the process of source-based writing, through paraphrasing or using direct quotes in particular, amongst advanced student writers who are considered as emerging scholars in their fields (Shi, Fazel, & Kowkabi, 2018). Moreover, analyses of instructors’ perceptions of these practices are deemed essential for offering pedagogical remedies (Colvin, 2007; Keck, 2006, 2010; Pecorari & Shaw, 2012; Shi, 2010, 2011, 2012a). In light of such exigency and due to the paucity of L2 writing research on graduate students and their instructors’ views (as discussed in Riazi, Shi, & Haggerty, 2018), my dissertation aimed at examining the processes of source selection and source integration in the term-paper writing of eight local and international Master’s and PhD students majoring in education at a major research-intensive Canadian university, along with their instructors’ perspectives on their source-based writing practices.  Data sources included drafts of research papers students prepared as part of their course requirements, related source texts and course materials, three rounds of text-based interviews with students during their writing processes, and individual text-based interviews with their course instructors. This qualitative study hopes to yield an in-depth understanding   3 of graduate students’ source-based writing processes. This methodology, along with the socio-cultural lenses of CoP (Lave & Wenger, 1991), Forms of Capital (Bourdieu, 1991) and Dialogism (Bakhtin, Emerson, & Holquist, 1986) have been utilized to capture and frame a contextualized and inclusive picture of such practices. 1.3 Purpose of Study I decided to pursue my doctoral dissertation research on this topic for personal, professional and pedagogical reasons, even before entering my program. As an EAL student, teacher, writer, and researcher, I have gained first-hand experience over the years both writing from sources and helping novices with the constant attempts, doubts, difficulties, and, at times, successes of writing from sources. I have also felt the paramount significance of an in-depth understanding of the complexities associated with such practices; there is a need to shed light on this occluded and indeterminate process, which has mostly and mistakenly been overshadowed by the final product. The dearth of information about source-use process is evident in the extensive body of existing literature that explores source use in academic writing (detailed further in Chapter 3). A fair number of these studies emphasizes challenges, and many strive to take pedagogical stances through offering suggestions for legitimate products of source use; however, few, if any, offer glimpses into the processes of source use in writing. In order to obtain a closer look at the process, rather than the product, of source-based writing in academic contexts, I sought to conduct a study that would track student writing progress over an extended period of time. I collected textual and interview data from multiple sources at a major Canadian university over the span of one academic semester (i.e., Winter Term One or Winter Term Two)—focusing on two language backgrounds (L1 and   4 L2) and two academic levels (Master’s and PhD) in one discipline (education). I hope such a data collection procedure affords the field a better understanding of the phenomenon under investigation and results in potential future applications of both the theory underpinning this project—the innovative interweaving of the three distinct conceptual frames of CoP, forms of capital, and dialogism—and pedagogical action plans, which will be proposed in the final chapter.  Once the textual and interview data were collected, they were analyzed at two levels. At the macro level, students’ source-based writing processes were teased out at three stages of their term-paper drafting in order to analyze and understand students’ practices and perspectives across language backgrounds and academic levels. At the micro level, motivations for source selection, as well as purposes behind different types of source integration (i.e., paraphrasing, appropriate use of direct quotes [ADQs] and/or inappropriate use of direct quotes [IDQs], and summarizing), were investigated. Results of this project will benefit the field of L2 writing in several ways. Firstly, it is hoped that the unprecedented weaving together of the three conceptual frameworks of CoP, forms of capital, and dialogism will expand the L2-writing horizon by offering new opportunities for conceptual guidance and relevant research. Secondly, this project strives to—alongside the modest existing research (e.g., Petrić & Harwood, 2013)—supply information regarding graduate students’ strengths and gains in their writing processes in addition to their difficulties; previous studies were mostly built on the challenges and failures of L2 students in the use of sources (e.g., Abasi, Akbari, & Graves, 2006; Angélil-Carter, 2000; Borg, 2000; Walker, 2010); the exploration of common successful patterns will hopefully be employed for pedagogical purposes to facilitate the adjustment of novice   5 research writers into their academic writing communities. Thirdly, this study focuses on students from different language backgrounds, local and international, and from different academic levels, Master’s and PhD, in an effort to more deeply understand their source-based writing commonalities and disparities. Finally, the fine-grained analysis in my study offers a clearer picture of individual student preferences and rationale for source selection and source integration and thereby contributes to the body of literature in this micro aspect of source use. It is hoped that the findings of this study will furnish university administrators and instructors with valuable insights into perceptions and practices of graduate students in terms of source use in academic writing, so that they can design and implement supportive policies, action plans, and instruction to meet the needs of graduate students in this fundamental and high-stakes aspect of academic writing. Offering effective pedagogical support can encourage students to entwine their writing efforts with the expectations of their academic writing communities. 1.4 Terminological and Conceptual Clarifications Growing research has strived to differentiate intentional from non-intentional source misuse (e.g., Sutherland-Smith, 2005). While the former is motivated by a will to cheat, the latter is deemed a breach of discourse conventions stemming from a lack of knowledge of those conventions. Scholars in the field of applied linguistics have recognized that inappropriate versus appropriate source-based writing cannot be easily divided into black and white. Accordingly, they have attempted to re-conceptualize what is conceived of as inappropriate source use. Several scholars have adopted new labels to avoid the stigmatizing connotations of the word plagiarism. For instance, the term textual borrowing is deemed a “less negative term than plagiarism” (Casanave, 2013, p. 174) and has been suggested (e.g.,   6 Shi, 2010) to refer to the appropriation of others’ words in one’s own text. In this view, borrowing is acknowledged as a common feature of language use and language learning. Further, there is a distinction between appropriate and inappropriate source use, depending on the manner in which the borrower has incorporated words or ideas into their own writing, and whether they have provided appropriate attribution or not (Abbasi & Grave, 2008; Petrić, 2004). As such, in this project, aligned with the growing number of scholars in the field (e.g., Pennycook, 1996; Shi, 2004, 2006, 2010), I employ the term textual borrowing to refer to the use of other authors’ texts in one’s own writing. Other terminologies in need of clarification are listed and explained below. • Source-based writing includes all forms of texts produced—here, by participating students—through drawing on the online or offline works of other authors and citing them according to standard styles such as APA and MLA. It includes citations in both the body of the paper and the reference list. • Source-use practices refers to the students’ source-use decisions including source selection and source integration while preparing drafts of their term papers in a graduate-level course.  • In-text citation refers to any mention of the name of one or more authors that has been included in the text either “integrally,” with the cited author in the citing sentence, or “non-integrally,” with the cited author in parentheses (Swales, 1990). • Citation strategies refers to practices the students put into trial to see if/how they might support their writing from sources, as well as techniques that have proven to be effective in improving the quality of their source-based writing in their past practices. • Paraphrase in this study refers to the participants’ attempts to present ideas from   7 source texts in their own ways, alongside the relevant in-text citations. • Appropriate use of direct quote (ADQ) refers to text identified by the participants as an appropriately-cited direct quote. It includes the use of any length of words taken from a source text, ranging from one word to multiple paragraphs, which (a) has double quotation marks around it, (b) is presented in the form of a block quote, or (c) is embedded inside students’ paraphrase (as discussed in Petrić, 2012). ADQs also include the original author(s)’ name(s), the year of publication, and appropriate page number(s).  • Inappropriate use of direct quote (IDQ) is used to describe any string of words taken from a source text, ranging in length from one word to multiple paragraphs, which (a) is not cited at all, or (b) is cited partially (i.e., is missing quotation marks and/or page number[s] but includes the original author[s]’ name[s] and year of publication, or includes only the original author[s]’ name[s]). • Citation motivation is the writer’s rationale for including a source in their paper (Petrić & Harwood, 2013). • Citation purpose/function refers to the function(s) that each use of citation fulfills in relation to the goal of the writer for using it in the specific text in which the citation appears. It constitutes “intentions writers realize by using citations” (Petrić, 2007, p. 241). As Petrić and Harwood (2013) very clearly explicate, the difference between source selection motivation and source integration purpose is subtle yet important. While citation functions [purposes] refer to the rhetorical roles citations perform in the text in which they are located, (e.g., to define a term used in the text or to support an idea expressed in the text), motivations tend to have a wider scope and refer to reasons for including a particular source in general (e.g., to show the student has read a particular source). These reasons may be related to the writer’s interpersonal goals such as a   8 desire to create a particular impression on the reader (e.g., to show familiarity with a source mentioned in classes). (p. 115)  • Community of practice (CoP) in this research, following Lave and Wenger’s (1991) definition, refers to both one’s relevant disciplinary discourse CoP as well as one’s peers and instructors in the relevant academic community. In my dissertation, I use this term to refer to either the participants’ disciplinary CoP or their peers and instructors, depending on the argument I am developing.  • Local participants1 in this project refers to the graduate students who were born or raised in Canada and speak English as their first language. Therefore, I employ the terms “local students” and “L1 students” interchangeably. Alternatively, I might also refer to them as “domestic students.” • International participants2 in this study refers to those graduate students who were born and raised in non-English speaking countries, speak English as their second or additional language, and received their previous degrees in their home countries. Thus, I use the terms “international students” and “L2 students” interchangeably. Here, I should note that I am aware of the complicated and contested nature of L1 and L2 categories (as discussed in Hyland, 2016, and Kubota, 2013, among others) and am employing these terms in my project merely for further clarification in the discussions on students’ backgrounds. Therefore, there is no intention of placing them against each other by creating a dichotomy. • Text-based interview(s) in this project refers to interviews I conducted with the                                                  1 It should be noted that local students in other contexts may not necessarily be native speakers of English. I am using “local,” “L1,” and “domestic” interchangeably since those descriptors are altogether accurate of the participants defined here. 2 It should be noted that international students in other contexts may not necessarily be non-native speakers of English. I am using “international” and “L2” interchangeably since those descriptors are altogether accurate of the participants defined here.   9 students and their instructors regarding the drafts (i.e., “texts”) that the students produced for their term papers. Finally, I should clarify that I am not referring to the legal notion of copyright when presenting arguments about source use in this project. Breach of copyright generally deals with the reproduction of copies of documents or products without obtaining the permission of their original authors or producers (Berti, 2009), while plagiarism or inappropriate source use refers to pulling textual data or ideas from source texts without appropriate citations and acknowledgments of the original sources. 1.5 Research Questions This study aims to contribute to the existing literature in the above-mentioned ways and in response to identified gaps by answering the following questions and sub-questions: 1. How do local and international Master’s and PhD students perceive, select, integrate, and modify sources in the process of writing term papers? a. What sources do they receive help from in the process of writing? b. What dilemmas do they face, and what strategies do they use to overcome the challenges in this process? 2. How do instructors evaluate and support students’ source-based writing in their term papers?  a. What factors do instructors consider influential in successful and/or problematic student source use? 1.6 Organization of Dissertation This dissertation is organized into eight chapters as follows. Chapter 1 offers a background on the issues concerning students’ source-based writing in academia that   10 inspired the formation of this study. It clarifies the main terminology and concepts employed in this study and touches on relevant studies and existing gaps in the field of second-language writing that make this project highly relevant. It also lists the research questions to be answered by this project. Chapter 2 reviews the three conceptual standpoints (i.e., CoP, Forms of Capital and Dialogism) supporting a socio-cultural view on language learning—that learning occurs through interactions within one’s socio-cultural milieu, and learning outcomes are interrelated with social and cultural backgrounds. This positioning affords the opportunity to investigate academic writing generally and academic source-based writing specifically, through a wider lens that views literacy as socially situated (Barton, Hamilton, & Ivanič, 2000; Gee, 1996; Purcell-Gates, 2007; Street, 1995). To this end, Lave and Wenger’s theory of CoP (Lave & Wenger, 1991), Bourdieu’s theory of Forms of Capital (Bourdieu, 1991), and Bakhtin’s theory of Dialogism (Bakhtin, Emerson, & Holquist, 1986) will be drawn upon. Chapter 3 provides a review of seminal studies related to my research topic, including an overview of major studies relevant to my research questions (i.e., those investigating source-based writing practices of university students across language backgrounds [L1 and L2] and academic levels [undergrad, Master’s, and PhD], as well as studies involving students’ source-use motivations and purposes, and instructors’ views on students’ practices). Ultimately, I argue for the need for more process-oriented studies to investigate students’ perceptions and practices of source-based writing that relies on more than one source of data. Such process-oriented studies could investigate, for example, participants’ and instructors’ accounts with respect to the student-produced texts.   11 In Chapter 4, I outline the details of this qualitative study in terms of its data sources, data collection, and data analysis procedures, as well as the research site, participant profiles, and the significance of this study. In this chapter, I also describe dilemmas in the recruitment of participants due to the sensitivity of this topic and ethical considerations involved. Toward the end of Chapter 4, I reflect on my researcher positioning with respect to this research project. There are three data analysis chapters. Chapter 5 presents the results of data collected from Master’s students, examining Master’s students’ views and practices of source-based writing across three stages of their term-paper writing, namely, the planning stage, the drafting stage, and the revising stage. I analyze the textual and interview data of students, present their challenges and strategies during their paper-writing processes, and compare the similarities and differences among them. I investigate their source selection motivations and explanations for using paraphrases, ADQs, and IDQs, and their rationale for making modifications in the types of source integration across drafts. Chapter 6 follows a similar analysis pattern as Chapter 5 does, focusing, however, on the perceptions and practices of more advanced students—that is, doctoral students. It also presents the results of comparing PhD students with those of Master’s students, where significant similarities and/or differences emerged from the data analysis.  In Chapter 7, I focus primarily on the text-based interviews with the students’ instructors, offering a thematic analysis of the ways in which instructors evaluate the source-use practices of the participating students, the type of support they offer to their students with respect to their writing from sources, and factors instructors consider to be influential in successful or problematic use of source texts in students’ writings, including, but not limited   12 to, the writings of participating students in this project. It should be noted that in Chapters 5, 6 and 7, analyses and findings will be interpreted through the lenses of the three conceptual frameworks of CoP, Forms of Capital, and Dialogism to as reasonable of an extent as possible, and as best fit.  Finally, Chapter 8 summarizes the data analyses and key findings of this project and discusses theoretical and methodological contributions of the study and implications for policy-makers and practitioners (i.e., course instructors) in the field of second-language writing research and beyond. It also discusses the limitations of this study and offers possible future research venues in the context of higher education. 14 Chapter 2: Conceptual Framework 2.1 Introduction My project is shaped around three well-vested concepts supporting a socio-cultural view on language learning. In this chapter, I will present these frames and how they afford the opportunity to investigate second-language writing generally and source use in second-language writing specifically, through a wider lens that views literacy as socially situated (Barton, Hamilton, & Ivanič, 2000; Gee, 1996; Purcell-Gates, 2007; Street, 1995). To this end, Lave and Wenger’s theory of CoP (Lave & Wenger, 1991), Bourdieu’s theory of Forms of Capital (Bourdieu, 1991), and Bakhtin’s theory of Dialogic Nature of Utterance (Bakhtin, Emerson, & Holquist, 1986) have been explicated and drawn upon.  The rationale behind the selection of these three theories as the conceptual frames for my project is that they have the potential of acting complementarily, supporting the socio-cultural views of language learning. In fact, CoP theory provides the wider, primary lens into which the two other theories can be embedded. While CoP offers the space to discuss source-based writing practices as part and parcel of the integration into the academic community in general, the other two are employed for closer and more critical examinations of the source-use practices of students in their academic communities; Bourdieuian capital theory offers the chance to view all of the academic practices and products as forms of capital that students who are novice agents in the academic “field” need to collect, and Bakhtinian language theory provides a window to view the text as a place where dialogic voices meet and to critique the notion of appropriate versus inappropriate source-based writing practices. Figure 2.1 visualizes the interrelations of the three selected frames as I have conceptualized them for my project. 15 Figure 2.1. Visual representation of the interrelation of the three socio-cultural framesFollowing this model, I explicate in this chapter, the existing interrelations as well as possible interconnections between second-language writing research on source use and these three socio-cultural frames. 2.2 Community of Practice and Second-Language Writing  In this section, to cover a range of discussions on the notion of CoP and how the second-language writing domain can be investigated through this lens, I begin by presenting the CoP design and major concepts related to this notion. I will then attend to the existing L2 writing research employing the CoP framework and continue with a brief overview of studies on source use in second-language writing framed by CoP. 2.2.1 Notion of Community of Practice Lave and Wenger (1991) introduced and defined the notion of CoP, which consists of a group of people with a set of relations who follow shared interests in a shared world. Such a community is comprised of participants who desire to learn from each other and contribute   16 with their variety of experiences. A strong community fosters interactions and encourages a willingness to exchange ideas. It provides the conditions for the personal knowledge of each member to become the social knowledge of all of the participants in the community. One crucial factor in the making a successful CoP is the motivation of members to participate. According to Ardichvilli, Page, and Wentling (2003), motivation to share knowledge is vital to a CoP’s success. Community members are motivated to become active participants in a CoP when they view knowledge as a community interest that can be achieved through continuous participation. According to Eugene and Provenzo (2009), a CoP is a multidimensional space where the members are “glued together” (p. 155) by a set of common goals. A community with shared goals provides opportunities for its members to practice the same activities, even if they come from different backgrounds and possess different levels of preparation. This shared space supports its members in achieving their individual, as well as group, goals. Each CoP offers a unique space for the definition of what is considered to be appropriate and acceptable practices or otherwise. One productive characteristic of CoP is its potential to let its participants discuss distinct ideas and challenge other members’ opinions. Such conversations can lead to knowledge exchange among newcomers and old timers of the community, to generate new ideas and practices (Wenger, 1998). There is an explicit and agreed-upon power relationship between an old timer of a community and a newcomer seeking membership in a CoP (Blanton, Medina, & Pilonieta, 2009). As Blanton et al. clarify, an old timer normally possesses the license to interpret and evaluate the performance of a newcomer in relation to the acceptable practices of a CoP. In turn, newcomers agree to be apprenticed and evaluated by old timers. Apprenticed   17 participation provides members of the community with identities, ideologies, discourses, values, and ways of thinking and knowing that characterize one as an accredited member of a CoP. This feature of CoP smooths the connection from the present discussion to the following section and explicates the fundamental concept of “legitimate peripheral participation” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 34). 2.2.2 Legitimate Peripheral Participation in Communities of Practice As mentioned, contrary to perspectives that consider learners as isolated individuals who need appropriate input to be able to produce expected output, Lave and Wenger’s (1991) theory of CoP advocates socially situated learning and claims that learners should be apprenticed into their learning. According to Lave and Wenger, learning happens through “legitimate peripheral participation” (LPP) in the social world. This central concept refers to the participation of a learner in the actual practice of an expert but to a limited degree. Lave and Wenger (1991) argue that both the motivation and meanings of learning are “configured through the process of becoming a full participant in a sociocultural practice” (p. 29). Through the process of LPP that a novice partakes in in the authentic practices of a group, the novice advances toward becoming a full participant in that group or community.  Granting legitimacy depends on numerous factors and is “implicated in social structures involving relations of power” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 36). A community can choose to either empower newcomers through increased legitimacy and more intensive participation or disempower them by preventing them from participating. However, it should be noted that these actions by a community are not one-way decisions but rather are influenced by interactions between a community and a newcomer; in other words, they are co-constructed by participating members of a CoP, both old timers and newcomers alike.   18 2.2.3 Second-Language Academic Writers in Communities of Practice The theory of CoP emphasizes the development of social and intercultural experiences of all members through bidirectional interactions. These experiences involve various levels of participation that are crucial and motivational for learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). For novice students, as newcomers to an academic context, active participation within the new setting in which they are situated is crucial to their integration into their CoP. They negotiate and create meanings in their new milieu, and their interactions within that specific space are linked to their position as legitimate peripheral participants. Universities, as venues for students to learn rules of academia and practice acceptable academic norms, offer opportunities for novice participants to engage in authentic practices and gradually move toward central academic activities to gain full membership in their communities. As Cronon (2006) argues, such practices that instill specific values and leanings in new members can be considered as one of the most important features of participation in CoPs. In academia, novice student writers’ immediate CoP consists of peers, instructors, and supervisors. All of these CoP members can share their academic writing experiences with their community and create opportunities to have mutual interactions regarding their experiences. Such a condition would encourage a collective willingness to share knowledge and ideas. It provides an opportunity for the academic knowledge of each member to become the social knowledge of all community members and for a novice to gradually become a full member of an academic community.  The notion of LPP and related issues of power distribution in social contexts have been vastly employed in research on L2 writing (e.g., Canagarajah, 2003; Flowerdew, 2000; Morita, 2004; Norton, 2001). These discussions have highlighted the process of legitimate   19 participation in one’s CoP (Flowerdew, 2000) and the potential of so-called inappropriate practices to lead to marginalization, and even elimination, from a community (Casanave, 2008; Norton, 2001). As a result, novices are tasked not only with learning the given standards of a community but also with determining unspoken rules and boundaries so as to avoid missteps that may marginalize them from the community. Available research emphasizes the co-constructed and socially situated nature of participation and learning in and from community, as well as the pivotal importance of bidirectional contribution to a community. Continuous interactions between newcomers and old timers (hereafter referred to as expert members3) can result in fuller participation of a novice writer in a relevant community. However, the question would be to what extent power relations in the academic domain allow new members to the community to contribute and have their perspectives represented in judgments on the legitimacy of activities, including source-based writing practices in the academic milieu. 2.2.4 Communities of Practice and Source Use in Second-Language Academic Writing With regard to the process of second-language writing, academic CoPs can provide informative environments in which novices have the opportunity to go through an exploratory journey of learning by getting involved in formal and informal as well as oral and written discussions and debates among themselves and with expert members—their instructors, supervisors, librarians, senior peers, and so on. Student writers constantly construct and reconstruct their knowledge by negotiating their perspectives on appropriate source use and citation and by comparing their views and practices with those of professionals and peers. As a result, in an academic CoP, student writers can have                                                  3 In CoP theory according to Lave and Wenger (1991), “old timer,” as a term to describe more experienced community members, is used; in this dissertation, however, “expert members” will be used for purposes of palatability.   20 discussions with their classmates to share their writing experiences and exchange ideas about their practices, specifically their ways of selecting and integrating sources. Such interactions can lead to a deeper collective understanding of the topic under discussion. Therefore, the purpose of a CoP is to provide the opportunity for practitioners to share their best practices, ask for help, and provide support to each other. Aligned with this argument, scholars in the field of second-language writing, and especially source-based writing in second-language academic writing (e.g. Howard, 1995; Petrić, 2012), emphasize that students’ textual-borrowing needs to be viewed as (a) a part of the process of learning “the discourse of the discipline” (Petrić, 2012, p. 111), (b) a move toward full membership in a discourse community, and (c) a means of learning unfamiliar language and ideas. For instance, Howard (1995) argues that novice writers require a great amount of support as they learn to write in their new discourse, and that causes them to depend heavily on sources to begin writing. According to Howard, for novices, textual borrowing is not only an inevitable stage but also an essential strategy that can facilitate learning of academic writing skills.  A modest number of studies on source use in academic writing have employed the notion of CoP to guide their investigations. As a case in point, Dong (1996) performed a prototypical study, employing CoP as the theoretical framework to look at textual-borrowing and citation practices of L2 students. This prototypical case study probed into students’ writings by focusing on the introductory section of three L2 doctoral students’ dissertations. The author investigated how these students’ supervisors, as the expert members, supported the students in the process of adjustment into their new academic discourse communities through providing guidance with appropriate textual borrowing and the use of citations in their academic writings. The researcher looked closely into students’ drafts—including their   21 dissertations’ drafts, published articles, and submitted papers—as well as style manuals used for writing. The study’s findings emphasized the significant role of supervisors in students’ “acculturation” (Dong, 1996, p. 451) into academic writing traditions. Moreover, these students as legitimate peripheral participants, also greatly benefited from reading published works and exchanging ideas with their peers. In the same vein, Pecorari (2006) suggested that an apprenticeship approach that supports situated learning and LPP would be a beneficial strategy to help students align their source use with their academic community’s expectations. Details of this study will be further explicated in Chapter 3.  Finally, Petrić (2012) viewed direct quotation use as a form of legitimate textual borrowing and a form of LPP. According to the author, novices become established members of CoPs through initial participation in simple and peripheral activities. In turn, such activities prepare novices for the mastery of more complex tasks and provide support for participation in core activities. In comparison with other types of source use, such as summarizing and paraphrasing, Petrić argues that direct quotation is an acceptable, yet simple, type of textual borrowing in academic writing. Novice writers might draw on this form of source use more often as they familiarize themselves with more complex forms of source-based writing. I should note that Petrić (2012) also drew on Bakhtin’s view of language in this study, and I will touch upon that aspect in its relevant section. The above discussion, based on the socially-situated notion of CoP, provides a solid ground from which to probe into second-language writers’ practices from a closer, more critical, perspective. To this end, Bourdieu’s theory of “forms of capital” (Bourdieu, 1991) will be attended to.    22 2.3 Bourdieu’s Forms of Capital and Second-Language Writing One of the main benefits of participating in a CoP is the affordance of collecting one or multiple forms of capital (Bourdieu, 1991) available in that community. To reach an understanding of Bourdieu’s notion of capital and its forms in relation to second-language academic writing—in particular, source use in second-language academic writing—in this section, I review the concepts of habitus, capital, language, and power, followed by a discussion on Bourdieu’s forms of capital in relation to novice academic writing practices and academic writing CoPs. 2.3.1 Concepts of Habitus, Capital, Language, and Power  According to Calhoun (2006), Bourdieuian habitus refers to a dominant feature of human beings that is comprised of a set of infused personalized characteristics, gained from childhood, which are not easily changeable and tend to force individuals toward the same familiar routine paths. Bourdieu argues that one’s habitus establishes the rules of the game in any market (Bourdieu, 1991). It orients one’s actions, not as a determinant, but through experiences and development of la sens pratique, or a sense of what is appropriate or not in varying situations. As a result, habitus can be viewed as an individualized set of internal rules of dos and don’ts. Individuals are under the constant influence of such dispositions and schemata, acquired as a product of growing up and interacting within certain contexts. Through exposure to societal beliefs and traditions, one’s practices, perceptions, and attitudes begin to reflect the dominant culture, so that one begins to react in certain ways in certain situations. In Bourdieuian words, individuals in new milieux are forced to go through the process of normalization (Bourdieu, 1991, p. 46) to be accepted in their group and find a place among the expert members. Obviously, the process of normalization calls for   23 modifications in established habitus and routines. Such significant changes are time-consuming and highly demanding indeed. Bourdieu introduces the notion of forms of capital into the social world. According to him, there are four major types of capital:  1. Economic capital, which is the command over monetary resources;  2. Social capital, which refers generally to one’s connections within and between social networks; 3. Cultural capital, which consists of knowledge and educational gains; and  4. Symbolic capital, which is comprised of honor, prestige, and title.  Forms of capital encompass human relations in all layers of society. People gain access to capital resources based on their positions in the power hierarchy in the social context, or, using Bourdieu’s term, in the field (Calhoun, 2006). In any CoP, the participating members with varying degrees of power are called agents, who act and react within their specific socio-cultural context or field. As a result, some might attempt to improve their current position and climb the power ladder by collecting different forms of capital in their related fields. In discussions about language and power, Bourdieu introduces another term, linguistic capital, as a form of cultural capital that can be collected by employing the medium of language. In discussions on language, Bourdieu claims that language is more than a medium of communication and acts as a channel for the transmission of power. It gives the legitimacy to dominate or be dominated. In other words, linguistic manifestations reveal one’s social position in the field. Such manifestations determine who has the right to talk, be listened to, and present their point of view, and to what extent. Bourdieu holds the view that instead of   24 trying to describe language in its purest forms (i.e., isolated from its context), it is essential to consider how power relationships and institutions hold sway over speakers of the same language and how these factors influence their interactions. As he clarifies, language is part and parcel of one’s habitus. Different accents, intonations, and ways of speaking are indices of one’s linguistic habitus. This could also be expanded to the realm of thinking and writing. As a result, it would be expected that members of the same community acquire and practice similar linguistic habitus, which influence their meaning-making and negotiation of those meanings as a manifestation of their thoughts. People adapt their linguistic habitus and modes of language use according to their social situations and social fields in order to gain acceptance and eventually power. Gaining this acceptance furnishes them with the sort of power assigned to that specific group. The benefits of this empowerment and the allotted capital are evident in their interactions with people belonging to other—especially marginalized—social classes.  2.3.2 Social Capital, Cultural Capital, and Novice Academic Writing Practices Bourdieu defines social capital as “the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition” (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 249). Acquiring social capital gives value to both an individual and a group as a unit, the group being the place in which social capital is generated. Through connections that participants make in their CoP, and through the sharing of their knowledge and active participation in group activities, members acquire social capital and become empowered. This form of capital has the potential to attract other forms of capital.   25 Novice agents in any field, including academic writing, strive to construct and participate in CoPs to form and/or reform their academic knowledge, including the knowledge of source use in academic writing. Their communities provide them with opportunities to collect knowledge through networking and learning from their group (Zappa-Hollman & Duff, 2015). Social contacts can increase both individual and collective productivity and creativity. Such interactions can help agents to reach a consensus, which is oftentimes considered one of the benefits of gaining social capital. As Ferragina (2010) explains, social capital can only be generated collectively thanks to the presence of communities and social networks, but individuals and groups can deploy it at the same time for different purposes. Individuals can profit from the social capital of their networks to achieve their personal objectives, and groups can use it to enforce a certain set of norms or behaviors. It is aligned with the purpose of interactions and negotiations taking place in a CoP, which offers the chance for participating students, individually or collectively, to define and redefine their understanding of appropriate versus inappropriate academic writing practices. According to the definition of the notion of social capital, this capital is not available to those outside a CoP. This feature, however, is considered by scholars such as Portes (1998) as one of the negative consequences of social capital. The second form of capital that fits with the present discussion is cultural capital. Bourdieu defines cultural capital as referring to non-financial social assets such as knowledge and educational gains. In second-language writing, the collective knowledge generated and distributed among participants as a result of discussions about different aspects of source use can be considered cultural capital. Like social capital, cultural capital is not available to outsiders and, as a result, acts as a distinguishing factor between members and   26 non-members. Thus, on one level, all students in academic contexts can gain cultural capital that distinguishes them from individuals outside the academia. On another level, through active participation in their new CoP, some L2 student writers might have access to layers of collective knowledge that offer them cultural capital inaccessible to non- or less participatory students. 2.3.3 Bourdieu’s Concepts in Academic Writing Communities of Practice  Bourdieu (1991) emphasizes the importance of language as both a structuring structure (i.e., a scaffold for meaning-making) and as a structured structure (i.e., a means to communicate about the meaning-making). Hence, language can gain power in the hands of certain communities, institutions, or individuals who can manipulate language to reflect their values and ideas as mainstream—“mainstream” being, in the North American academia, students and instructors belonging to western, white, middle-class, native-English speaking communities. As terminology reflecting the views of those in power is diffused among community members, it begins to guide and shape what is considered normal, legitimate and therefore acceptable. The notion of “standard language,” as introduced by Bourdieu (p. 46), highlights the status quo that, in a specific academic milieu, only particular forms of language practice are viewed as acceptable and qualify for cultural capital. As a result, gaining knowledge of legitimate source use is a way of collecting linguistic capital and academic empowerment. This legitimate language competence and performance, or linguistic capital, can produce a profit of distinction in each social interaction. Being equipped with such linguistic capital helps agents in the field to defend their rights, present their capabilities, and raise their voices. This capital helps newly empowered L2 writers to access a higher level in the academic power hierarchy through graduation and publications,   27 which bring them more capital. A matter of concern, however, is that, for L2 students to be able to gain more cultural capital and be accepted into a higher level in the academic hierarchy, going through the process of normalization is inevitable. Standardization of their linguistic habitus (through assimilation into the dominant linguistic practices), as a subset of the dispositions that comprise their habitus, can be a very challenging process—a process that is further problematized from a critical and postcolonial perspective. Habitus consists of dispositions acquired during one’s life—here, specifically while learning a second language. These dispositions are formed in the context of L2 learners’ family, school, and classroom peer groups, among others. As a result, their constructed linguistic habitus are designed according to the expectations of those markets. If L2 learners’ linguistic models in their former markets diverge from legitimate and standardized uses of language in a new field, students will find that the application of their native language norms—as a natural component of their habitus—in their new academic context may be considered illegitimate, non-standard, and problematic. To be able to gain more capital, these students will need to reformulate their linguistic habitus and add to them a set of new linguistic competencies; otherwise, their legitimate linguistic habitus, gained in their former milieux, would be under attack by the dominant power relations in the new field.  In the realm of second-language writing, Starfield (2002) introduces a more specific type of linguistic capital that can be employed in discussions on written forms. According to Starfield, linguistic capital that comes in the form of knowledge gained in academic writing can be termed “textual capital” (p. 124). Holding this textual capital helps novice writers to secure membership in the field and collect further forms of capital. Grounding her study on Bourdieu’s theory of capital, Starfield (2002) investigates the academic writing practices of   28 two Black students studying in a South African university. By collecting data from multiple sources, including the students’ assignments, class observations, and interviews, Starfield delves into a thick description of the students’ practices and the formation and reformation of their identity and authority in academia. According to the researcher, the students’ ability to collect textual capital (Bourdieu, 1991) through the textual representation of their ideas played a significant role both in their educational success or failure and in negotiating their authorial identities. The two participating Black students suffered from a lack of academic cultural capital due to their inherent habitus, which was at odds with the institutionally dominant norms of academic writing. As a result, their textual-borrowing practices were labeled as inappropriate. The concept of appropriate versus inappropriate use of source texts and the origin of this division connect the present discussion to Bakhtin’s (Bakhtin, Emerson, & Holquist, 1986) theory of language and the dialogic nature of utterance, which looks at the nature of language use from a more critical socio-historical perspective. 2.4 Bakhtin’s View of Language and Second-Language Writing Bakhtin (Bakhtin, Emerson, & Holquist, 1986) argues that the interlocutors in one language, whether speakers and listeners or writers and readers, are engaged dialogically in a process of negotiation over meaning-making. His theory of the Dialogic Nature of Utterance, which is socio-historically grounded, holds that the boundaries defining individual ownership of words and ideas are blurred. In this section, I expand on this socio-cultural standpoint, examining more closely the concept of the dialogic nature of utterance in Bakhtin’s theory and the application of Bakhtin’s point of view in second-language writing research and in studies on source use in second-language writing.    29 2.4.1 The Dialogic Nature of Utterance in Bakhtin’s View of Language  According to Bakhtin (Bakhtin, Emerson, & Holquist, 1986), texts are “filled with others’ words, varying degrees of otherness or varying degrees of ‘our-ownness’” (p. 89). He claims that interaction between texts or dialogic forms does not necessarily represent contact between objects but can constitute an engagement between subjects, or “personalities”. Thus, dialogic relations may occur between different people (external dialogue) as well as within the same subject (internal dialogue). Bakhtin has termed this internal dialogue a dialogue with the self, in which all words are “double-voiced,” (p. 110) containing within them a dialogue and interaction between the voices. These crucial insights by Bakhtin have provided a pathway into the development of a theory of subjectivity that is discursively constructed (Norton, 1997; Pennycook, 2001) and is dynamic and ongoing. Regarding the notion of author, as Kearney (1988) explains, a shift has occurred in creativity and authorship meanings in the pre-modern to modern and post-modern eras. In the pre-modern epoch, human imagination was considered as reproductive of originality, which had a divine source; the common belief centered on the idea that divine inspiration, not humans, produced texts. In the modern age, this concept changed, and human imagination was accepted as being productive, rather than reproductive, of originality in the sense that the human mind could produce new meanings which were transcendental (that is, connected to a higher spiritual source). This belief also shifted in the post-modern era, where language was considered to be creative, rather than productive; emphasis was placed on the role of the individual human being in creating original language independently, thereby entitling him or her to claim ownership of it. The thought-provoking point in this evolution of concepts is the fact that, as Pennycook (1996) suggested, all of these evolutions—which have led to a   30 significant emphasis on individualization, resulting in the emergence of notions such as plagiarism and intellectual property (Willinsky, 1990) and new meanings of originality and authorship—were designed and viewed through a western perspective, with its contested cultural and historical hegemonies in multiple aspects (as discussed in Kubota, 1999, 2015), including views on the ownership of language. 2.4.2 Bakhtin’s View of Language and Second-Language Writing Research According to Bakhtin (Bakhtin, 1981; Bakhtin, Emerson, & Holquist, 1986), utterances as units of language appear dialogic—that is, anything that is ever said always exists in response to things that have been said before and in anticipation of things that will be said in response. Bakhtin argued that language units in both spoken and written forms are not individual and isolated but exist in continual interactions. Thus, a text is always “oriented toward the ‘already uttered,’ the ‘already known’” (1981, p. 279), and former uses of language are embedded in their present uses. As he explains, “Our speech, that is, all our utterances, is filled with others’ words” (p. 89)—and the same applies to our written texts. Aligned with this idea, Lensmire and Beals (1994) claim, “We are born and develop, learn to speak, read and write, awash in the words of others. . . . Our words are always someone else’s words first” (p. 411). This debate clarifies that language is in circulation and it is constantly cycled and recycled (Pennycook, 1996). As a result, the notions of appropriate versus inappropriate textual borrowing should be investigated with close attention to the concepts of authorship and ownership and how they can be context-sensitive. Another researcher who challenged western authorial hegemonies was Biggs (1991), who contrasted the western vantage point about learning with research findings on non-western, Asian students. He highlighted certain distinctions and contradictions between   31 western points of view and non-western students’ conceptions of learning. For example, while, in general western views, repetition and memorization of others’ words can be considered plagiarism or at least mechanical rote learning, in general Asian perspectives, these strategies can be used as part of learning to deepen knowledge and develop understanding. This general Asian understanding, as he suggested, is well supported by Bakhtin’s theory of the dialogic nature of utterance and the (re)cycling of language. It is clear that students coming from different backgrounds do not necessarily hold the same views regarding ownership, memorization, creativity, and learning; these concepts are defined differently in each individual’s habitus (Weigle & Parker, 2012). It should be noted that, this fact could be also expanded to western students with different socio-cultural and educational backgrounds. Therefore, encountering varying approaches to academic practices would be expected among students from the same country but diverse socio-cultural and educational backgrounds (Casanave, 2008). 2.4.3 Bakhtin’s View of Language and Source Use in Second-Language Writing  A handful of studies on source use have employed Bakhtin’s view of language and the dialogic nature of utterance as their guiding frame. In this section, I present a brief review of each to showcase how such a vantage point, as a powerful lens, can facilitate the analysis of data in my study. Currie (1998), drawing on the Bakhtinian view of language (Bakhtin, Emerson, & Holquist, 1986), and aligned with Pennycook’s (1996) ideologies regarding textual borrowing, problematized the traditional view of plagiarism and promoted the necessity for understanding intercultural differences in students, specifically, how L2 students might view notions of plagiarism, authorship, and authority differently. According to Currie, the   32 traditional view of plagiarism is ideological, that is, it “unjustifiably elevates a western concept to the status of norm” (Currie, 1998, p.1). This ideological perspective privileges the “concept of the person established within the European Enlightenment” (Scollon, 1995, p. 3). From this position of “ideological arrogance” (Scollon, 1995, p. 45), the traditional view neither acknowledges practices it sees as outside the norm nor accords validity to other different understandings of text, memorization, and learning (Pennycook, 1996). Details of Currie’s study will be presented in the following chapter.  According to Thompson (2005), in order to promote the authoritative writer identity in emergent writers, scholars and instructors should acknowledge that students’ practices are “subject-in-process-and-on-trial, engaged in forms of intertextual knowledge production…” (p. 10). Thompson (2005) assigns the uncertainty and confusion of participating students with regard to the appropriacy of their practices to Bakhtin’s dialogic notion of “conflict of voices” (Bakhtin, 1984, pp. 74-75), where each voice competes for a position as it interacts with the other. Abasi and Akbari (2008), in their study, employed Bakhtin’s framework to explain unintended plagiarism or transgressive intertextuality. Bakhtin’s view of language provided them with the two notions of appropriation and addressivity. The concept of appropriation emphasizes that individuals learn in their contexts as they appropriate other people’s utterances, and addressivity stresses the dialogic relations between a text and its preceding and succeeding texts. As a result, students’ texts can be viewed as responses to pedagogical and institutional documents, such as course outlines or institutional policies on plagiarism, as well as texts written in anticipation of pedagogical assessments. Bakhtin’s dialogic   33 perspective, therefore, provides a theoretical basis for discussions on students’ textual productions in relation to immediate and anticipated situations.  In a more recent study, Petrić (2012) utilized a Bakhtinian lens (along with a Bourdieuian, as discussed earlier) to investigate student writers’ practices when pulling information from sources. Petrić (2012) believed that students’ successful attempts to write according to academic standards should be recognized and appreciated; it would be unfair if the scholarship in this area concentrated merely on students’ challenges and pitfalls. According to Petrić, even successful students might struggle to acquire the required and acceptable discourse, which is not a matter of choice but of obligation for students, who need to “invent the university by assembling and mimicking its language” (Bartholomae, 1985, p. 590). Appropriating a new way of writing in academia is extremely difficult, even for native speakers entering an unfamiliar field. This reality has been noted most eloquently by Bakhtin (1981):  [N]ot all words for just anyone submit equally easily to this appropriation, to this seizure and transformation into private property: many words stubbornly resist, others remain alien, sound foreign in the mouth of the one who appropriated them and who now speaks them; they cannot be assimilated into his context and fall out of it; it is as if they put themselves in quotation marks against the will of the speaker. (p. 294) In the same line of inquiry and in a concurrent study based on the Bakhtinian view of language, Shi (2012b) argued that instead of focusing on students’ appropriate citation practices as a legalistic requirement, it would be more beneficial to emphasize the dialogic nature of words and their connections with ideas, and how students and faculty members might hold varying judgments about which words or ideas should be cited, based on factors such as their educational level and background, as well as the discipline they come from. These are among the important factors that should be further researched in order to reach   34 appropriate pedagogical strategies to help student writers in their learning processes. Finally, as Weigle and Parker (2012) emphasized, students hold varying attitudes toward textual-borrowing practices due to disparate understandings of their own versus others’ ideas and words, which well represents the Bakhtinian concept of the dialogic nature of language, I would argue. Overall, the above-mentioned studies demonstrate the suitability of employing Bakhtin’s theory of language—in addition to the two aforementioned concepts of CoP and Forms of Capital—as a conceptual frame for studies on source-based writing and for my research project in particular. In conclusion, I will detail and argue how such a collaboration of the three explicated conceptual frames would provide an overarching lens for the analysis of the data collected for my dissertation research and beyond. 2.5 Conclusion  This chapter has outlined the three concepts of CoP, forms of capital, and dialogism and their connections to second-language academic writing, in particular, source use in second-language academic writing. The interconnectivity among these three standpoints (as illustrated in Figure 2.1) offers a vantage point from which to view the process of source-based writing as situated and embedded within a complex socio-cultural milieu. Such an interrelation of concepts encourages the investigation of linguistic, textual, educational, and contextual factors contributing to struggles, as well as successes, of novice research writers as they collect acceptable and accredited forms of capital through their source-use practices. The undergirding theory provides a space to examine students’ and their instructors’ perceptions of source-based writing, whilst bearing in mind the contested concepts of dialogism, ownership, and authorship in a globalized world and, in particular, in the context   35 of a university that strives to promote the internationalization of education. On top of the opportunities pointed out, the interplay of the three lenses and the formation of the innovative, multi-layered conceptual framework offer a novel window for future research, where the concepts of community, capital, and dialogism can be placed at the heart of the discussion; the affordances of the proposed inclusive framework may prove exceptionally helpful to advocates of socio-pedagogical scholarship in the field. It is my hope that my attempt to weave together the three notions and discuss my research findings in light of them will inform future research both in the area of source use in second-language academic writing specifically and in research in the larger field of applied linguistics generally. In the following chapter, I will review the literature relevant to my research questions and sub-questions in order to provide a background for the discussion of my findings in the subsequent chapters.     36 Chapter 3: Literature Review 3.1 Introduction  Conducting research in academia is closely tied to the use of other authors’ work in one’s own. Pulling information, whether ideas or words, from online and offline sources is an integral element of academic research which helps authors strengthen their claims. University students, specifically at the graduate levels, are expected to conduct research and compose papers as part of the requirements for the completion of their coursework and thesis/dissertation research. While relevant literature plays a pivotal role in the production of a solid discourse, inappropriate source use might lead to undesirable outcomes that can have irreversible negative impacts on a novice researchers’ credibility—both educationally and professionally. Issues related to appropriate use of sources have been among the most controversial topics of discussion among university students, instructors, and scholars. In L2 writing, as research on students’ writing practices reveals (e.g., Shi, 2011), challenges of novice students in adopting the academic writing norms appear to be significant as, in most cases, these students need to reformulate their habitus (Bourdieu, 1991) and modify their life-long ways of knowing according to the expectations of their new CoPs. Developing awareness of standards of academic source use, appropriate textual borrowing, and all of the gray areas in source-based writing and learning to act according to the expected standards cannot happen over a short period of time. It is a learning process that takes tremendous effort and practice and, naturally, is not expected to be free of errors. As Pecorari (2003) explains, learning the appropriate use of citations is “rarely a straight line from input to mastery. The novice academic writer must crawl before being able to walk” (p. 320). In academia, the concept of plagiarism, originating from the westernized concepts of ownership   37 and individualism (Pennycook, 1996), dominates the discourse-related interactions among instructors and students and, in many cases, might not leave any space for considering the role of other underlying and contributing factors. While no one enjoys falling into the trap of plagiarism, novice writers coming from distinct backgrounds might find it hard to escape from such a powerful whirlpool. Prior to attending to the empirical studies, I will begin this chapter by reviewing a number of traditional, as well as alternative, scholarly views about the source-based writing practices of novice student writers. This review (presented in Section 3.2 below) provides a backdrop for discussing the major empirical studies in the field. In the outlining of the empirical studies, factors of students’ language and academic backgrounds will be attended to in order to align this literature review with the research questions of my dissertation. Moreover, since my study collects data at the preparation, drafting, and revision stages of each participant’s source-based writing, relevant literature on citation behaviours of students, including their source selection motivations and their purposes for using types of source integration, will be reviewed. Finally, a group of studies investigating teachers’ views on students’ source-use practices will be reviewed to back up the analyses in Chapter 7 relevant to my second research question.  3.2 Traditional and Alternative Scholarly Views on Student Source Use  In recent years, a group of scholars has voiced their opinions about novice students’ experiences with academic writing in terms of citation practices and source use. These scholars have discussed the challenges students face in citing sources in their writing and have examined several factors influencing these students’ source-based writing practices. This section aims to review the major points of view about citation practices in second-  38 language writing in order to provide a background for the investigation of seminal data-driven studies.  Efforts to advise university students to carefully respect academic integrity by avoiding inappropriate source use are longstanding. However, the related body of research has revealed significant uncertainties among students on how to avoid illegitimate practices (e.g., Polio & Shi, 2012). Based on a wealth of research carried out in the field, students’ inappropriate use of source texts in university assignments has been a growing concern in academia (e.g., Macdonald & Carroll, 2006; McCabe & Katz, 2009; Storm & Storm, 2007).  Employing disparate lenses, scholars have attended to this issue from distinct angles.  Foregrounding the linguistic factors related to L2 students’ writing practices, a group of scholars holds the view that a major part of the problem with L2 students’ citation practices pertains to their linguistic knowledge, particularly their lack of knowledge of academic English writing. This more traditional view of textual borrowing and source use focuses on the English language ability and proficiency-related factors contributing to L2 students’ writing practices. According to this perspective, insufficient knowledge of the English language, and specifically inadequate academic writing skills in English, is the major factor in L2 students’ inappropriate textual-borrowing and citation practices. According to this presupposition, some suggest that punitive measures need to be taken by teachers to prevent recurring cases of plagiarism (e.g., Walker, 2009). In this view, the use of detection tools such as EduTie, Moss, Turnitin, and PlagiServe is promoted as an ideal way to find cases of source misuse and regulate them. Consequently, classroom teachers are considered detectives who are responsible for catching cheaters and meting out penalties to them. According to this deficit model, L2 students can be misusers of academic standards due to   39 their disqualifications, including lack of English language proficiency, poorly developed study and research skills, lack of self-confidence in their writing ability, and an inability to conduct critical analysis of information provided in a source text. While teaching writing skills seems to be the key to solving the issue of inappropriate textual borrowing, a host of scholars (e.g., Sowden, 2005) argue that, despite continual explicit instructions, L2 students still struggle with decisions when extracting information from sources, due to their background. They highlight the significance of educational background in L2 students’ approaches to academic writing. According to these scholars, the strong notions of sharing and collaboration in non-western academic cultures promote the act of writing as a practice of intertextuality resulting in shared ownership. Therefore, L2 students might express confusion about how to cite source information to avoid inappropriate source use in western academic contexts. Scholars investigating the educational underpinnings of intertextuality argue that the academic values of students coming from different milieux might be at odds with acceptable western practices in matters such as plagiarism. They emphasize the need to consider L2 students’ distinct relation to a text due to their “culturally conditioned” concepts about matters such as plagiarism. As a case in point, they highlight the Chinese Confucian academic norm, which promotes open access to information as it is considered common knowledge. As a result, they conclude that Chinese students who view textual productions of authors as public assets may find themselves at odds with western beliefs regarding the private ownership of knowledge. Moving beyond the above-mentioned factors, some experts contend that linguistic knowledge and educational background are only two of the factors affecting L2 students’ approaches to academic writing, and L2 educators must consider the interplay of a host of   40 factors influencing L2 students’ writing practices and the way students pull information from sources in order to construct new knowledge claims. Therefore, it is not helpful to assume that L2 students in western universities tend to plagiarize simply due to their lack of English language knowledge and academic writing skills or their distinct educational backgrounds (Liu, 2005; Williams, 2007). In many cases, novice L2 writers mix their own words with source texts just because they are still in the process of learning through intertextuality, and, in fact, novice L1 writers might engage in the same process. Therefore, it is crucial for academia to familiarize itself with students’ individual perceptions of appropriate or “valued practices” (Phan Le Ha, 2006, p. 78). Such insight into L2 writers’ understandings can undoubtedly help to avoid stereotyping students and their academic practices based on factors such as their countries of origin. Even if students’ underlying value systems are found to be related to their way of writing, it could be considered as an additional, rather than a negative, factor influencing L2 students’ use of source texts—one that would be in need of further investigation. Therefore, overemphasis on inappropriate textual borrowing as a culturally conditioned matter rarely leads to any pedagogical progress and only promotes stereotyping of L2 students (Kubota & Lehner, 2004). This deeper insight into related factors can prevent the grouping of novice writers and their citation practices based on their countries and languages of origin (Smith, 2005). For the same reason, in my project, I involved both local and international students and investigated, compared, and contrasted their perceptions and practices in terms of source use. Pedagogy-oriented scholars believe that teachers need to spend more time teaching about plagiarism than hunting for it (Howard & Davies, 2009; Wood, 2004). Challenging the traditional view of students’ inappropriate textual borrowing as academic dishonesty, the   41 pedagogy-oriented approach acknowledges intertextuality as a constructive strategy likely to be deployed by students as a natural part of learning how to write. Emphasizing that patchwriting4 is not always a form of academic dishonesty or an inability to write properly, this pedagogy-oriented perspective suggests that, for novice L2 writers, using source texts can be considered a way of participating in the unfamiliar practices of the community in which they are trying to fit in. As a result, instructors should engage their students in the learning process (Colvin, 2007) since simply rooting out inappropriate practices and punishing will not end plagiarism. According to Moody (2007), addressing plagiarism from the perspective of intertextuality is a more productive approach to teaching writing skills. According to pedagogy advocates (e.g., Fazel & Kowkabi, 2014), intertextuality is a part of learning and should not be treated as an unethical act, especially in this age of point-and-click (Christenbury, 2009). Therefore, it has been proposed that academic writing can be best taught as a process through which teachers monitor students’ development, from the reproduction of language to the incorporation of sources (Moody, 2007). As a result, pedagogy-oriented researchers emphasize the facilitating role of teachers and how teachers can support learners in their acquisition of appropriate practices—a point of salience that prompted me to include teachers’ points of view in this study. 3.3 Seminal Empirical Studies on Source-Based Writing   To get an in-depth understanding of current research findings and identify areas in need of further investigation, in this section, a review of the data-driven empirical studies focusing on novice source use in academic writing will be presented. I have classified the                                                  4 Patchwriting, as defined by Howard (1992), is “copying from a source text and then deleting some words, altering grammatical structures, or plugging in one-for-one synonym substitutes” (p. 233). It is, according to Li and Casanave (2012), a strategy commonly used by novice writers to cope with unfamiliar topics they write on.   42 studies into four major categories to reflect the aspects under investigation in my doctoral research project. These factors are: i. source-based writing involving L2 or both L1 and L2 students, ii. source-based writing involving students at different academic levels, iii. citation behaviours of university student writers (without comparing academic/language background): motivations and purposes, and iv. teachers’ views on students’ source-based writing. In each category, the distinctive features of selected studies—such as the researchers’ views (e.g., pedagogical vs. punitive) toward participants’ textual borrowings, genres they investigated (e.g., theses, textual varieties of assessments, publications, and course assignments), and other factors they examined (e.g., role of authorial identity, disciplinary background, etc.)—will be presented and explicated for further clarification. It should be noted that, since a few studies have focused on more than one of the categories listed above (e.g., Evans & Youmans, 2000; Shi, 2011), I will either present them based on their primary research focus only—in order to review them in their relevant section (e.g., Evans & Youmans, 2000; Chandrasoma et al., 2004)—or I will present the separate findings and/or aspects of the studies in the sections to which they are relevant (e.g., Shi, 2011). 3.3.1 Source-Based Writing Involving L2 or Both L1 and L2 Students Despite students receiving continuous precautions about respecting academic integrity by avoiding plagiarism, available research shows novice students still struggle with following rules of appropriate source use when pulling information from sources (e.g., Petrić, 2012; Polio & Shi, 2012). In response to concerns in academia regarding the inappropriate use of sources, several studies have investigated and at times compared L1 and L2 students’   43 source-use practices and have examined students’ writing samples to reach a better understanding of their practices (e.g., Colvin, 2007; Evans & Youmans, 2000; Keck, 2006, 2010; Pecorari & Shaw, 2012; Rinnert & Kobayashi, 2005; Shi, 2004, 2010, 2011, 2012a, 2012b; Sutherland-Smith, 2005; Weigle & Parker, 2012). In this section, I will review seminal studies relevant to my research questions, specifically those investigating source-based writing of university students from L1 and L2 language backgrounds. In the realm of second-language writing research, much effort has been put into pinpointing and alleviating difficulties with textual borrowing in higher education, as well as offering instructional suggestions for these difficulties. Whilst many studies have examined practices of L2 students only (e.g., Dong, 1996; Evan & Youmans, 2000; Gu & Brooks, 2008; Shi, 2016), others have investigated both L1 and L2 participants’ writings (e.g., Hyland, 2009; Keck, 2006, 2010; Shi, 2004, 2010; Thompson, 2005). In what follows, I will first highlight the findings of a body of research that has looked solely at L2 students’ writing practices, and then review studies that have collected data from both L1 and L2 students. The categorization of these studies based on language was intended to reflect the focus of my research questions. Novice L2 Students Under Scrutiny In the past two decades, several studies have looked at L2 students’ textual borrowing perceptions, practices, and challenges posed by source use (e.g., Currie, 1998; Dong, 1996; Evans & Youmans, 2000; Flowerdew & Li, 2007; Gu & Brooks, 2008; Harwood & Petrić, 2012; Shi, 2016; Sutherland-Smith, 2005). These studies have looked at several factors in relation to novice L2 students’ source use. While some have focused on how the process of textual borrowing might influence and be influenced by L2 students’ authorial identity (e.g.,   44 Gu & Brooks, 2008) and disciplinary background (e.g., Shi, 2016), others have investigated L2 students’ attempts to either present a good image of themselves in their academic writing assignments (e.g., Harwood & Petrić, 2012) or to use source texts in their writings for the purpose of publication (e.g., Flowerdew & Li, 2007).  A few studies have explicitly reported on the role of L2 students’ language backgrounds in their textual-borrowing practices. For instance, in her case study research, Currie (1998) explored one L2 undergraduate student’s apparent plagiarism as a survival strategy in a western academic context. This L2 novice writer experienced major difficulties in meeting academic expectations due to unfamiliarity with the linguistic and procedural knowledge needed to complete the tasks in her new field. In one assignment, she was expected to write an argumentative essay by taking a position but felt uncomfortable arguing in favor of only one position. Since she did not have experience with such a practice in her previous educational experience, it was challenging for her to analyze sources and claim a stance; as a result, she relied on directly copying from source texts. Analyzing both the L2 writer’s assignments and interviews with said student, the course TA, and the course professor, Currie highlighted the importance of understanding L2 students’ backgrounds in addressing their inappropriate use of source texts. According to Currie, educators should be aware of possible disparities between L2 students’ views of knowledge and learning originating from their backgrounds and those in alignment with western norms of practice.  In the same line of inquiry, Evans and Youmans (2000) conducted an interview-based study, investigating L2 undergraduate students’ perceptions of plagiarism at a public university in the Southern United States. In contrast to the L2 student in Currie’s (1998) study, who was confused about how to avoid plagiarism, the L2 students in Evans and   45 Youmans’ (2000) study were familiar with the notion of plagiarism but regarded it as a “necessary norm” (p. 57) in the academic contexts of their home countries. Evans and Youmans (2000), echoing Currie (1998), factored in the L2 participants’ backgrounds in their source-use practices.  While the findings of the two aforementioned studies emphasized the significance of L2 students’ language background in their academic writing practices, the results of an earlier study by Dong (1996) suggested that the language backgrounds of L2 students do not exert compelling influence on their textual-borrowing practices. Dong examined the introductory sections of three L2 doctoral students’ dissertations’ drafts and their published or submitted scientific articles based on their dissertations. Dong also observed writing conferences and lab meetings and conducted interviews (including background and in-progress interviews) with the students and their supervisors. The findings of the study emphasized the significant role of the supervisors in supporting the students’ acculturation into the new academic writing traditions through ongoing discussions. Yet, they did not report any possible adverse influences of the L2 students’ language backgrounds on their source-use practices. Since previous studies involved L2 students at different academic levels (e.g., undergraduates in Currie’s [1998] study and doctoral students in Dong’s [1996] study), such contradictory findings call for further research to compare L2 students across different academic levels. More recently, Pecorari (2003) investigated writing samples of seventeen L2 graduate students from three British universities, studying in the humanities, the social sciences, science, and engineering. In this case study research, she also interviewed students and their supervisors to capture their ideas about prototypical plagiarism versus transparency in   46 source-based writing and citations. The author promoted a pedagogical, rather than punitive, approach to cases of inappropriate citation. According to Pecorari, such a pedagogical perspective would enable instructors to reach a deeper understanding of citation, which is “an occluded feature of academic writing” (p. 324). As the author further explained, three presuppositions are made by the readers of any given text. These assumptions are: a. that language which is not signaled as quotation is original to the writer; b. that, if no citation is present, both the content and the form are original to the writer; c. that the writer consulted the source which is cited (Pecorari, 2003, p. 324). Based on these three presuppositions, the researcher analyzed the students’ writing samples, collected from both in-progress and completed drafts. Strikingly, the results revealed that all of the participants breached at least one of the three presuppositions. Pecorari (2003) further explicated that there would be four possible explanations related to students’ misuse of sources: (a) the widespread traditional belief that they intended to cheat, which the author did not advocate because the participants in her study demonstrated a high level of motivation and avoided covering strategies while being interviewed; (b) the influence of the L1 culture, which she argued not to be terribly significant; (c) learning, as a part of the process of gaining mastery over academic writing discourse; and, finally, according to her findings, (d) what she called the explanation of “the beat of a different drummer” (p. 338). According to the author, this final belief referred to the novice student writers’ appropriate citation practices in their papers, which was only one of the many tasks on their to-do list as they   47 wrote, meaning it could have easily been overlooked. The findings in this study suggest that what might be viewed as inappropriate textual borrowing should be considered as both a common strategy employed by novice L2 writers and “as a neutral, rather than a stigmatizing error” (Pecorari, 2003, p. 342) in the process of learning a new writing style.          Similar to Pecorari’s study, Gu and Brooks (2008) employed text-based interviews to examine the data collected from ten Chinese graduate students and three instructors in a British university. Evidence from the authors’ investigation into Chinese students’ perception of plagiarism demonstrated that these novice writers had to go through a “conceptual and holistic development” (Gu & Brooks, 2008, p. 348) to be able to act according to the standards of their host university—that is, to follow the citation standards in their academic source-based writing. As the authors mentioned, such a development is accompanied by challenges in the processes of cognitive adaptation (i.e., the change in habitus—the way their mind was trained to learn and produce knowledge in their previous context), socio-cultural appropriations, and authorial modifications to conform to the dominant norms of the L2 discourse community. Such a significant revolution might lead to the (re)formation of the individual’s authorial identity. In a recent study focusing on L2 students only, Shi (2016) used text-based interviews to investigate the role of disciplinary background in the source-use practices of novice academic writers. She looked at the textual-borrowing practices of two L2 undergraduates from arts and science and reported discrepancies between the two participants in terms of the types of sources consulted (e.g., textbooks versus monographs), the types of source integrations employed (e.g., paraphrasing versus quoting), and their purposes for citing or not citing sources (e.g., using words and ideas of others versus arguing their own points of view).   48 Shi highlighted the role of disciplinary expectations of source-based writing in these two L2 students’ writing efforts. L1 and L2 Students’ Writing from Sources  Probing into students’ textual-borrowing practices, the second group of scholars has involved both L1 and L2 students (e.g., Hyland, 2009; Keck, 2006, 2010; Rinnert & Kobayashi, 2005; Shi, 2004); however, only a few have focused on identifying similar and different strands between L1 and L2 students’ practices. In particular, four studies (i.e., Keck, 2006, 2010; Rinnert & Kobayashi, 2005; Shi, 2004) have discussed textual borrowing and the use of citations across language backgrounds (L1/L2). While three of these studies (i.e., Keck, 2006, 2010; Shi, 2004) employed a quantitative analysis of textual features in students’ writing to examine the summarizing and paraphrasing skills of students, one study (i.e., Rinnert & Kobayashi, 2005) investigated students’ attitudes toward textual-borrowing and citation practices using questionnaire and interview data. Different from other studies in this group, one study (i.e., Hyland, 2009) examined students’ source-use practices in a test situation. Each of the above-mentioned studies will be summarized below.  Shi (2004) looked at eighty-seven L1 and L2 undergraduate students’ summary writing and opinion writing. In this study, L2 students were found to have copied source texts more than their L1 counterparts. Moreover, it appeared that summary tasks led to the use of more borrowed words than opinion tasks did. The author listed factors such as inadequate summary skills, lack of experience with citations, and limited language ability as the major reasons for inappropriate textual borrowing in L2 students’ summary writing.  In a subsequent study, Keck (2006) compared the paraphrasing skills in L1and L2 undergraduate students’ summary tasks. One hundred and sixty-five student text samples   49 were categorized into four major groups based on the taxonomy of four types of paraphrases. The paraphrase types were near copy, minimal revision, moderate revision, and substantial revision. The findings of this study suggested that both L1 and L2 writers employed paraphrasing strategies for their summary tasks, but differences were observed between L1 and L2 students in the use of paraphrase types. While most L1 learners did not use nearly-copied excerpts, most L2 students used at least one. Moreover, while most L1 students employed both moderate and substantial revisions, L2 students did not. Keck concluded that L2 writers might be less conscious about the unacceptability of using nearly-copied paraphrases in their summaries, and further instruction is required to raise awareness in these students.  In the same line of inquiry, Keck (2010) analyzed a corpus of summaries written by 124 L1 and 103 L2 undergraduate writers to investigate the major strategies that students employed when paraphrasing source texts. The researcher found that, while the strategies of deletion and synonym substitution were frequently used, both L1 and L2 writers avoided copying by dividing the original sentence into its major components (e.g., subject, main verb, direct object) and transforming them into new units (typically of a different grammatical form) that expressed the same idea. The study did not report any differences between L1 and L2 students’ practices though the author suggested further investigation of both L1 and L2 students’ paraphrasing to refine understanding of the strategies associated with effective textual borrowing.  Instead of textual analyses, Rinnert and Kobayashi (2005) carried out a survey comparing the questionnaire and interview responses of a group of Japanese students and a group of L1 students from the United States. They reported that more than half of L2   50 students in their study (i.e., 56%) showed some sort of conditional acceptance of using others’ words and ideas in one’s own work without citations. On the other hand, only five percent of American students expressed conditional acceptance of non-credited use of sources. Findings revealed that L2 participants perceived the borrowing of words and ideas without citing sources not to be entirely negative while L1 students were careful to give credit when borrowing and rephrasing, revealing differences in their cultural and/or educational backgrounds. However, as the researchers clarified, further research is required to confirm or refute the tendencies highlighted above. Whilst the above studies probed into students’ writing samples in non-test situations, one study in this group (i.e., Hyland, 2009) examined the use of source texts among 96 L1 and 29 L2 students in a test situation (i.e., a timed writing-proficiency assessment essay).  Employing a self-developed Reading Reference Grid with 16 categories to classify students’ borrowed texts, Hyland (2009) reported three common weaknesses in both L1 and L2 students’ test writings: vague references, inappropriate textual borrowing, and confusion of quotes and paraphrases. According to the author, there were more significant differences within each L1 and L2 group than between them. As a result, it can be concluded that every university student, whether L1 or L2, needs to acquire a set of “rhetorical (effective way of using language), linguistic and critical thinking skills” (Hyland, 2009, p. 70) to be able to improve their referencing practices, and it seems not to be attainable without the continuous support and instruction of their writing teachers.  The aforementioned studies revealed contradictory findings regarding the role of students’ language background (L1/L2) in their academic writing practices. While some confirmed the significance of language background in students’ perceptions and practices of   51 textual borrowing and their so-called “unacceptable” use of sources in academic writing (e.g., Currie, 1998; Evans & Youmans, 2000), others did not report any noticeable contribution (e.g., Dong, 1996). The conflicting findings in scholarship call for further studies to add to the needed literature in this critical area. To this end, my project investigates graduate students’ practices of crafting their term papers using sources, which will contribute to the existing gap in literature by providing insights into not the product but the process of forming and reforming this aspect of academic literacy in novice researchers’ writing across language backgrounds (L1/L2). 3.3.2 Source-Based Writing Involving Students at Different Academic Levels Due to the vital importance of source-based writing practices in university contexts, the number of studies about university students in this area of research has been growing. Most available studies have looked at both undergraduate and graduate writing (i.e., Chandrasoma, Thompson, & Pennycook, 2004; Shi, 2011, 2012a, 2012b; Weigle & Parker, 2012), yet only a few are focused on student practices at graduate levels ( i.e., Abasi, Akbari, & Graves, 2006; Pecorari, 2003, 2006). Moreover, although the abovementioned studies have involved two groups of students (e.g., undergraduate and graduate or Master’s and doctoral), not many have explicitly compared students’ practices across academic levels. (An example of an exception is Abasi et al. [2006]) In what follows, I will first review studies involving both undergraduate and graduate students and then discuss available studies on the practices of Master’s and PhD students. Undergraduate and Graduate Students’ Writing from Sources Among studies involving both graduate and undergraduate students ( i.e., Chandrasoma et al., 2004; Shi, 2011, 2012a, 2012b; Swales, 2014; Weigle & Parker, 2012),   52 two studies (i.e., Shi, 2011; Swales, 2014) made an explicit comparison between graduate and undergraduate source-use practices. Although other studies involved two groups of students at two academic levels, they did not provide any explanations as to why they selected the participants from two levels. As a case in point, Chandrasoma et al. (2004) looked at samples of student writing, supported by interviews, in an attempt to investigate cases of transgressive (i.e., inappropriate) and non-transgressive (i.e., appropriate) intertextuality in student writing. The participants were 12 undergraduate and graduate students pursuing their studies in business administration and communication at two Sydney universities. Although the participating students were selected from two academic levels, the researchers did not place much emphasis on differences between the two groups’ practices, focusing instead on the forms of intertextuality and how they may have become transgressive. Furthermore, the authors argued that textual-borrowing and citation practices should be investigated contextually since they are connected to the backgrounds of students, the attitudes of instructors, and the nature of the assignments given. The single study in this group that looked at the differences in students’ practices and perspectives across academic levels was a more recent study by Shi (2011), involving 28 graduate and 20 undergraduate students. Shi investigated the concept of common knowledge among students participating in one interview session, where they commented on seven samples of student-written appropriated texts, selected from a larger study. Shi included both L1 and L2 students  in the study since she believed using sources in one’s academic writing is a high-stakes practice for both L1 and L2 novice student writers. Participants’ judgments about the need for citing selected texts were identified under three categories: citation required, citation not required, and not determined. Although the findings of the study   53 suggested that graduate students had more diverse ideas than their undergraduate counterparts about whether citations were needed in certain places, no significant differences were found among participating groups in their judgments of appropriate citation practices. According to the author, decisions about citing or not citing differ more across individuals than graduate and undergraduate students.  Similarly, Swales (2014) did not report any noteworthy disparities in the citations of undergraduate and graduate students in a corpus of biology papers. This study did not employ the interview technique to collect first-hand experiences of students, but rather looked through a corpus of “A” papers from a flagship research university. The author compared the papers of final-year undergraduates and first- to third-year graduate students and examined the use of integral and parenthetical citations, the employment of reporting verbs, the role of the citation system, and the distribution of some features such as the use of the citee’s first name. Swales reported no significant difference between the practices of undergraduates and graduates in these regards. Master’s or Doctoral Student: Does It Make a Difference? While studies reviewed in the previous section looked at samples of graduate and undergraduate students, three studies investigated both Master’s and PhD students’ practices (i.e., Abasi et al., 2006; Pecorari, 2003, 2006). One study in this latter group was conducted by Abasi et al. (2006). The researchers conducted a multiple case study on five L2 graduate students at a major Canadian university. Three of them were in PhD programs, and the other two were studying at the MA (Master of Arts) level. In addition to collecting student writing samples and course-related artifacts, the authors conducted interviews based on the drafts and final papers that the participants wrote. The findings suggested that, in contrast to more   54 advanced writers (i.e., PhD students), less experienced writers (i.e., MA students) tended to perceive themselves as followers and transmitters of existing literature, which they considered to be a source of absolute truth. Since they did not assign an authoritative role to themselves, MA students avoided presenting their own arguments by relying heavily on source texts. While Abasi et al.’s (2006) study reported noticeable disparities in the practices of the two groups of graduate students, the two other studies involving Master’s and PhD participants (i.e., Pecorari, 2003, 2006) did not find such apparent differences.  Pecorari (2003) investigated challenges of 17 L2 graduates (nine MA and eight PhD) in academic writing at three British universities. While MA participants were asked to select a portion of their in-process dissertations, the researcher collected samples of PhD students’ writings from eight completed PhD theses. Strikingly, it was found that 16 out of 17 writers had one or more passages in their writing samples in which 50% or more of the words were copied from sources without the use of quotation marks. Pecorari believed that copying was part of the process of gaining mastery over academic writing discourse, and citation was “an occluded feature of academic writing” (Pecorari, 2003, p. 324). The study suggested that copying should be viewed as a common strategy employed by novice writers and “a neutral, rather than a stigmatizing error” (p. 342) in the process of learning, even at graduate levels. She recommended shifting focus from “post facto punishment to proactive teaching” (p. 317).  In the same line of inquiry, Pecorari (2006) employed the same data to investigate three features of academic writing in the work of these L2 students: the use of secondary citation, source details, and language repeated from a source. Student writers’ practices in all of the aforementioned areas diverged from standard writing expectations. The author   55 explained that student writers might fail to pay appropriate attention to the occluded features of their writing—such as textual borrowing and the use of citations—which were also left unaddressed by their supervisors and instructors. According to Pecorari, an apprenticeship approach that supports situated learning would be a beneficial strategy to help students complete their academic work in accordance with academic expectations in both visible and occluded aspects. The author emphasized that, in an attempt to enter their new academic communities, at times, novice student writers might not adhere to academic expectations in their citation practices. However, to respond to all students’ learning needs, expert members of academic CoPs should go beyond “the visible tip of the iceberg” (Pecorari, 2006, p. 27) to address the occluded features of students’ writing at both the Master’s and doctoral levels. To summarize, while one study identified differences between MA and PhD students’ practices (i.e., Abasi et al., 2006), the other two studies did not (i.e., Pecorari, 2003, 2006). Further research investigations on textual-borrowing and citation practices across academic levels would benefit higher-education institutions by offering instructional remedies targeted at students in different academic levels. 3.3.3 Citation Motivations and Purposes Among University Student Writers  In recent years, there has been a growing number of studies on the citation behaviour of university student writers. In this section, I will review the most relevant studies looking at the motivations and purposes for using sources in university student writing. The reason for including a review of these studies is that, to capture the process of using sources in the micro-analysis of my findings, I investigated the student participants’ motivations for selecting certain sources over others, as well as their purposes for using certain types of source integration—that is, paraphrasing, direct quotation, and summarizing—in their term-  56 paper writing. The following review provides a window to the existing literature with similar investigations. It should be noted that the definitions for the citation purposes presented in the relevant studies below are available in tabular format in Appendix A. About a decade ago, Petrić (2007) conducted a corpus-based study comparing citation purposes in the theses of eight Master’s students from one discipline (i.e., gender studies). Petrić identified nine purposes across the low-rated and high-rated theses of participants: “attribution, exemplification, further reference, statement of use, application, evaluation, establishing links between sources, comparison with sources and other purposes” (pp. 248-249). She highlighted a significant difference between the practices in low-rated compared to high-rated theses. According to the author, learning effective citation practices is crucial for students as it has a direct impact on their academic success or failure.  Another study, by Harwood (2009), identified 11 citation purposes that students had in mind while drawing on sources, including signposting, supporting, paying respect, showing position, engaging readers, and advertising5. Harwood reported the result of the interview-based study, which examined data from 12 participants from two disciplines, computer sciences and sociology. The researcher identified inter- and intra-disciplinary similarities and differences and assigned them to the type of paper participants were drafting (i.e., theoretical vs. empirical), the anticipated audience, or the intended publication venue. Harwood also reported that, while participants from computer sciences tended to use sources to direct readers to external sources, sociologists tended to use citations to present their critiques.                                                  5 According to Harwood (2009), advertising citations point to an author’s earlier work or promote the work of others.   57 Shi (2010) also presented 14 reasons students had for using sources, clustering them around three major categories: (a) functional reasons to support an argument, to form one’s own ideas, and to discuss key points in sources; (b) interpretational reasons to discuss new information, facts, research findings, background information, credible sources, and common knowledge; and (c) reasons related to their learning, such as presenting the results of their learning and teachers’ preferences. As they clarified during the text-based interviews, students had different reasons for citing certain sources. Also, through the interviews in her study, Shi looked at students’ understanding of summaries, quotes, and paraphrases and their stances with regard to using them. In a subsequent study, Mansourizadeh and Ahmed (2011) compared and contrasted the citation practices of novice and expert writers within the same discipline. They also examined different types of purposes students might have for drawing on sources and identified six types of purposes, namely, “attribution, support, reference, establishing the links between sources, identification and comparison” (pp. 155-156) in students’ integral and non-integral citations. In their study, Mansourizadeh and Ahmed identified disparate patterns in the citation purposes of the two groups. While the novice research writers employed sources mostly to attribute, the scholars used them to support and justify their claims. Along similar lines of inquiry, in a more recent case study, Samraj (2013) investigated the source-use practices in Master’s theses and journal articles in the field of biology with the aim of teasing out purposes of source use in the discussion sections across the two genres (i.e., Master’s theses and published journal articles). Samraj identified overlaps in the citation purposes identified in the Master’s theses and journal articles. These purposes encompassed “comparison, interpretation and explanation of results, evaluation of cited work and the field   58 cited work accomplished in, and recommendation for practice and for future research” (p. 304). Unlike Mansourizadeh and Ahmed’s (2011) findings that indicated discrepancies between the source-use practices of novice and expert writers, Samraj (2013) de-emphasized such disparity. Further, Samraj explicated that the absence of such discrepancies could be due to the nature of thesis writing as a more sophisticated and longitudinal research practice in contrast with shorter research papers (which were examined in Mansourizadeh and Ahmed’s study). As a result, source-use practices in thesis writing could be closer to the practices of more expert writers. In a mixed-method study published around the same time as Samraj (2013), Petrić and Harwood (2013) analyzed the source-use practices of one graduate management student across two assignments, employing text-based interviews, followed by “quantifying the qualitative codings to allow for comparison” (p. 110). Their findings highlighted task-specific source-use purposes across both the controlled task (where the sources were selected by the instructor) and the open task (where the student selected the topic and sources for the paper). In both assignments, the student writer had task-specific purposes and drew on sources to define terminology and to support her arguments. The authors called the two functions “core citation functions” (p. 121). As Mansourizadeh and Ahmed (2011) did, Petrić and Harwood (2013) concluded that novice student writers’ citation purposes are different from those of experts in scope and complexity. Using Petrić’s (2007) taxonomy of citation purposes, in their most recent corpus-based study, Lee, Hitchcock, and Casal (2018) examined high-rated first-year research-paper writings of 100 L2 undergraduates and categorized their source-use purposes. They reported that attribution was the primary type of citation purpose among the L2 students and   59 concluded that the participants were still in the process of developing their ability to use more rhetorically complex purposes for citing sources (such as citing for analytical purposes, to show their voice and authority in their writing). Lee, Hitchcock, and Casal’s findings justified why the student-produced texts were more descriptive than analytical and consisted of more knowledge-telling (i.e., reporting on existing literature) than knowledge-transforming (i.e., arguing their own points of view in relation to existing literature).  To summarize, as the aforementioned studies reported, there exists a wide range of source-use purposes among novice and expert writers. These studies identified differences in student citation purposes—differences which result from a number of factors, including disciplinary disparities (e.g., Harwood, 2009; Petrić & Harwood, 2013) and types of papers drafted (e.g., Samraj, 2013). Further investigation is required to better understand such practices and purposes, as well as their contributing factors. 3.3.4 Instructors’ Views on Students’ Source Use Probing into instructors’ views, as an additional perspective on students’ source-use practices, will lead to an understanding of student practices from the standpoint of the students’ texts’ readers. In this section, in order to provide a background for the analyses presented in Chapter 7, I will provide an overview of studies involving teachers’ views on university-student source-use practices and focus only on the factors they deemed influential in students’ problematic and/or successful source-use practices.  Whilst most available studies in this area have collected instructors’ views as the readers of their own students’ writings (i.e., Abasi & Akbari, 2008; Chandrasoma et al., 2004; Currie, 1998; Dong, 1996; Evans & Youmans, 2000; Flowerdew & Li, 2007; Gu & Brooks, 2008; Harwood & Petrić, 2012; Ouellette, 2008; Sutherland-Smith, 2005), three   60 studies have looked at instructors’ comments on the writings of other students (i.e., Pecorari & Shaw, 2012; Shi, 2011, 2012). These two groups of studies will be reviewed in the following two sections. Instructors as Readers of Their Students’ Writing Available studies in this group have identified a range of influential factors in students’ textual-borrowing and citation practices, including the significance of interactions between teachers and students and the importance of pedagogical context in the co-construction of appropriate versus inappropriate textual borrowing (e.g., Abasi & Akbari, 2008; Evans & Youmans, 2000). For instance, in their case study research, Abasi and Akbari (2008) suggested that, through assigning manageable readings to novice student writers, raising their awareness about appropriate textual-borrowing practices, and providing continual instruction, instructors can support students in passing the patchwriting stage in their writing learning process. While a couple of studies highlight the role of disciplinary differences in professors’ diverse perceptions of originality, shared knowledge, and (in)appropriate textual borrowing and citation (i.e., Chandrasoma et al., 2004; Flowerdew & Li, 2007), others report on instructors’ emphasis on the role of external factors, such as the Internet (Sutherland-Smith, 2005), and internal factors, such as identity (Ouellette, 2008), in students’ learning of (in)appropriate practices.  In Sutherland-Smith’s (2005) aforementioned study, discrepancies were identified between L2 students’ and their instructors’ views about the Internet’s textual space and its applications. L2 students considered the Internet as a free zone for finding and using relevant common information without any citations, while their instructors viewed these practices as   61 cyber-plagiarism. Moreover, a more recent study (i.e., Harwood & Petrić, 2012), involving two L2 Master’s students and their instructors, suggests that even when students try to use citations in their writings to provide evidence of having consulted sources, they might mistakenly misuse or overuse their sources, having an adverse effect on their teachers’ views of their source-use practices. One common feature in many of these studies is that they emphasized the role of instruction and instructors in familiarizing students with academic discourses. According to these studies, acknowledging students’ practices as subject-in-process-and-on-trial (i.e., “the student-as-emergent-author awaiting assessment/confirmation as a legitimate academic writer from her/his lecturers” [Thompson, 2005, p. 3]), holding a pedagogical, rather than punitive, approach toward students’ inappropriate textual borrowings, and encouraging students to value and voice their own arguments in their textual productions (Ouellette, 2008) can help novices to integrate into academic writing traditions (Dong, 1996; Gu & Brooks, 2008). Instructors as Readers of Another Group of Students’ Writing While the above-mentioned studies collected instructors’ views on their own students’ textual data, more recent studies (i.e., Pecorari & Shaw, 2012; Shi, 2011, 2012) interviewed instructors based on the writing samples of other student writers. For example, probing into the judgments of 27 instructors (i.e., 22 L1 and five L2) from multiple disciplines on a selected portion of students’ appropriated texts taken from a former study, Shi (2011) investigated instructor perceptions of common knowledge versus special knowledge (i.e., information that would not or would, respectively, require citation). Interestingly, the findings revealed discrepancies in instructors’ judgments on the same writing samples. According to the researcher, these outcomes highlight individual differences   62 in instructor values, attitudes, and experiences. In a subsequent study, Shi (2012b) confirmed the disagreements among the same instructors regarding their perceptions of good and bad paraphrased samples in student writings. She interviewed faculty members across disciplines to compare their ideas about the specific citation practices of a group of students not their own. Participants’ citation judgments and comments were classified into three categories: (a) words as specialized concepts versus words as grammatical structures, (b) words versus ideas, and (c) common versus specialized words (e.g., scaffolding as a common word vs. paradigm shift as a specialized word in the field of education). Shi (2012b) advocated a supportive pedagogical perspective to novice writers’ constraints and dilemmas with citations. Findings of the study called for an exploratory approach toward student source-use practices to reach a deeper understanding of students’ challenges and to support their learning process with appropriate instruction. Finally, Pecorari and Shaw (2012) investigated the judgments and attitudes of eight instructors, as readers of students’ academic writing practices, using text-based interviews. Aligned with the findings of the two aforementioned studies, instructors revealed vastly divergent attitudes toward students’ textual borrowings due to their disparate personal evaluations about appropriate versus inappropriate source-use practices and their individual judgments regarding students’ intention to deceive. These findings appear to account for inconsistencies that generally appear in students’ attitudes toward citation practices. Obviously, divergent attitudes of instructors have an impact on their teaching practices and, as a result, may lead to differences in students’ takes of what constitutes appropriate use of source texts.   63 3.4 Conclusion In this chapter, I outlined both traditional and alternative perspectives of source use. Drawing on such underpinning, I presented and discussed the major data-driven studies in the area of source use in academic writing that were pertinent to the factors under investigation in my own research. By attending to these factors in the literature—novice students’ experiences with academic writing, contributing factors to students’ successes or challenges with source use, and scholarly perspectives on novices’ engagements with source texts—this review painted a picture of existing advancements, uncertainties, and aspects in need of further investigation in the field. According to the research, there is a wide range of source-use purposes among students that deserves more clarification through further research.  Discrepancies also exist in the research findings with respect to factors contributing to appropriate versus inappropriate student source-use practices, including the roles of factors such as language background (i.e., L1 vs. L2 writers) and academic level (i.e., Bachelor’s, Master’s and PhD). Lastly, investigation of the views of instructors toward their own or other students’ source-use practices reveals both consensus on the importance of pedagogical context and discrepancies in judgments and attitudes due to individual instructor differences. More studies collecting the views of instructors—and those of students across varying academic levels and language backgrounds—are deemed essential to understanding and unveiling the processes of source use in academic contexts.  Methodologically speaking, the reviewed studies in this chapter have mostly employed text-based interviews as their methodology for collecting data. Quantitative, survey, and case studies have also been employed but with much lower frequency. In light of the reviewed scholarship—including, at times, existing controversies in the research   64 findings—and, in an effort to achieve a deeper understanding, I have probed, in my own research, into students’ and instructors’ perceptions of the use of source texts and student’s textual-borrowing and citation practices.  Given that the choice of data sources is directly tied to both the issue(s) under investigation and the purpose of a study, appropriate selection of a data collection method affords a researcher the appropriate tool(s) to fulfill the purpose of a study and to find answers to research questions. For my doctoral research, I decided to employ a qualitative approach to be able to increase the thoroughness of the findings by collecting data from multiple sources. Including a chain of evidence enhances the overall reliability of my study and confirms the emerging finding(s) (Merriam, 1988). More details on the methodological structure of my study will be explicated in the next chapter.       65 Chapter 4: Methodology 4.1 Introduction  This chapter outlines the methodology of my study, which consisted of three rounds of text-based interviews with graduate-student participants during the writing process and one with their instructors. This research project aims to capture the process of student source use; factors influencing such practices, namely challenges, strategies, motivations and purposes; and instructors’ perspectives of students’ source use. To effectively explicate the structure of the methodology for this study, I will begin with the rationale for the design of my study and continue with the details of the research site and participants’ profiles for both students and instructors. I will then describe difficulties with participant recruitment, data sources, data collection, and data analysis procedures. After that, I will discuss the ethical considerations of this study and conclude the chapter by presenting my positionality as a researcher. 4.2 Design of Study I conducted a qualitative study that helped me complete an in-depth empirical investigation of graduate students’ source-based writing in an academic context. In my study, I focused on the source-use practices of eight graduate students across two academic levels (i.e., Master’s and PhD) and two language backgrounds (L1 and L2). As a result, it was deemed reasonable to consult multiple sources of data to reach a holistic and trustworthy view of the unit or phenomenon from the participants’ perspective (Stake, 2005). Therefore, in this project, I collected data from students’ term-paper drafts, as well as from rounds of text-based interviews with students and final interviews with their instructors. My study intends to tackle a particular genre of academic writing—participants’ term-paper writing—  66 and, specifically, graduate students’ ways of selecting and integrating sources when writing their term papers. Such information might not be observable using other research designs that collect data from one source only, such as one-time text-based interviews and questionnaires (Richards & Schmidt, 2002). Collecting data from multiple sources offers the potential to represent unique and not-yet-understood features which might explain to the researcher and the research audience the relevance of the study to the general understanding of a phenomenon. Aligned with this, the present study strives to familiarize scholars in the field with source-writing features in graduate students’ term papers. I involved eight student participants to investigate their individual practices over multiple drafts, while comparing and contrasting their differences and similarities across two academic levels (i.e., Master’s and PhD) and two language backgrounds (L1 and L2) where applicable. 4.3 Research Site I conducted the study in the faculty of Education at a major research-intensive Canadian university with a growing population of local and international graduate students. Graduate students accepted to this university are highly qualified individuals. International students have passed the globally recognized English proficiency tests of TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) or IELTS (International English Language Testing System) with above-average scores. It is worth mentioning that, while, in recent years, there has been a significant focus on the socio-cultural aspects of the learning and teaching of writing in the faculty that was the site for my data collection, in most other faculties in this university, a more traditional (i.e., punitive) view toward novice writers is still dominant. This view is evident in the guidelines the university stakeholders and policy-makers emphasize, which focus on a regulatory approach toward students’ academic misconduct, which includes   67 plagiarism. These policies, in turn, have a guiding role in determining how university departments and their staff make decisions regarding cases of student source misuse. 4.4 Student Recruitment and Profiles To answer my research questions on local and international students’ source-use practices across Master’s and PhD levels, I recruited one L1 Master’s student, three L2 Master’s students, one L1 PhD student, and three L2 PhD students. (For terminological details regarding the use of the terms “L1” and “L2” in this dissertation, please refer to section 1.4.) I began by e-mailing a letter of initial contact (please see Appendix B) to potential participants in the faculty of education; the letter included a request that the e-mail be shared with those in their networks. These convenience and snowball sampling techniques (Duff, 2008) helped me succeed in recruiting participants. (It should be noted that students from generation 1.5 were not included in this study since their educational backgrounds might have been in both L1 and L2 contexts.) All of the recruited students were made aware of my involvement with their instructors (with regard to their final term-paper submissions) and gave written consent for their participation in my study. (For student consent forms used, please see Appendix C.) 4.4.1 Master’s Students When I first interviewed Alice, Sally, Wendy, and Elena (all pseudonyms), they were at different stages of their Master’s programs in Education. While Elena had just started her MA program and was taking her courses in the first academic semester, Alice was in the second semester of her first year, Wendy had started her second year, and Sally was well settled into her program, being in the second semester of her second year. With respect to their language backgrounds, Alice, Sally, and Wendy identified themselves as second-  68 language writers, having received their previous degrees in their home country of China, and Elena confirmed that English was her first language. Table 4.1 presents the participants’ background information. It also shows whether these students reported any previous training in the appropriate use of sources. Elena was the only participant who reported taking courses on academic writing in her previous program. As a result, she claimed she was familiar with acceptable source-use practices in academic writing. Table 4.1 Master’s Participant Backgrounds Student Name Language Background Degree Program # Years in Program Previous Degree Country Previous Degree Received Previous Instruction in Source Use Alice L2 MEd 1st BA in Business English China No Sally L2 MA 2nd MA in Communication Studies China No Wendy L2 MEd 2nd BA in Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language China No Elena L1 MA 1st BEd in English Canada Yes Note. All Master’s participants were majoring in the discipline of education.  4.4.2 PhD Students At the time of the first interview, all four of the participating doctoral students were in the second term of their first year of doctoral studies. Three of the four doctoral students—Arman, Essi, and Linda—identified themselves as second-language writers. All three received their Master’s degrees from their home countries, where English is used as a second   69 language. Jeff, the remaining doctoral student, was the only participant who confirmed that English was his first language and that he received his previous degree from a major Canadian university. Table 4.2 below shows information regarding the background of these students before being accepted into their current PhD programs. Table 4.2 Doctoral Participant Backgrounds Student Name Language Background Degree Program # Years in Program Previous Degree Continent Previous Degree Received Previous Instruction in Source Use Arman L2 PhD 1st MA in Information Design North America No Essi L2 PhD 1st MA in International and Comparative Education Europe No Linda L2 PhD 1st MA in TESOL East Asia No Jeff L1 PhD 1st MA in Applied Language Studies North America No Note. All doctoral participants were majoring in the discipline of education.  I should highlight that, to maintain confidentiality, I have not only replaced the participants’ names with pseudonyms but also purposefully removed some identifiable details, such as the nationalities of the international PhD students. 4.5 Instructor Profiles Text-based interviews with the course instructors helped me to answer my second research question about their views on the source-use practices of the participating students.   70 With each participating student’s permission, I individually recruited and interviewed each student’s course instructor (except one, as will be explained below) to understand if/how they supported their students’ research writing and what factors they considered influential in the participating students’ source-use practices. To accomplish this, I invited the six graduate-level instructors by sending them invitation letters via e-mail, where I explained my study on their respective student’s term-paper writing. (There were eight student participants; however, three of them had courses with the same instructor [i.e., Joy], so I contacted six instructors instead of eight. For instructor consent forms, please see Appendix D.) Also, I should clarify that one of the six instructors (i.e., Suzi) did not reply to my invitation; instead, she gave permission to her student, Arman, to ask his mentor, Peter, to participate in the study and comment on Arman’s term paper. Peter was Suzi’s previous MA supervisee and was hired by Suzi to help her with a range of tasks, including supporting her newly-admitted students, if necessary. Since Arman mentioned Peter’s name during the interviews (which will be presented in Chapter 6), I have included and explained his biodata here. However, in Chapter 7 (on instructors’ perspectives of students’ source use), I will present and discuss the data analysis based on the comments of five graduate instructors only, as the expert members of their CoPs. At the time of the interviews, the instructors had finished teaching their courses and had also marked their students’ final papers. Janice’s, Nick’s, Ross’s and Elizabeth’s courses were open to both Master’s and doctoral students. In the case of Joy, while one of her courses was designed for all graduate levels (the one in which her Master of Arts student, Sally, was a member), the other course was open to doctoral students only (the class Linda and Essi were part of).    71 It is noteworthy that, at the time of this study, the faculty at the research university featured in this study was one of the leading faculties in the field of education, nationally and internationally. Instructors interviewed for the purpose of this study were highly recognized scholars in their research fields and had years of experience teaching and researching issues concerning the learning and teaching of L1 and L2 students. As graduate course instructors and supervisors, they had worked with numerous students at the Master of Education (MEd), Master of Arts (MA), and doctoral levels. Table 4.3 presents the instructors’ profiles. Janice, Nick, Ross, Elizabeth, and Suzi each instructed one participating student, while Joy was the instructor for three of the participants (i.e., two doctoral students and one Master’s student), and Peter (a former MA student of Suzi’s) acted as a mentor/tutor for Arman. Table 4.3 Instructor Profiles Instructor Name Instructor Academic Rank Student Name Academic Level of Student Commented on Background of Student Commented on Academic Year of Student Commented on Janice Instructor Alice MEd International 2nd Nick Associate Professor Jeff PhD Local 1st Ross Professor Wendy MEd International 2nd Joy Professor Sally MA International 2nd Linda PhD International 1st Essi PhD International 1st Elizabeth Associate Professor Elena MA Local 1st Suzi; Professor; Arman PhD International 1st   72  Peter  Not applicable (Mentor)  4.6 Challenges and Rewards in Data Collection Process Initially, I had planned to allocate one term for the data collection for this project, but unexpected challenges awaited me. I had received the ethics approval and had embarked on the recruitment of participants (which included an offer of a $25 university bookstore gift certificate as an incentive for each participant); however, I came to realize that my research topic seemed disquieting to some potential participants—in particular, to potential Master’s participants. On one occasion, I had a conversation with a Master’s student who showed interest in my study but was hesitant about sharing her writings with me because she was afraid of being accused of plagiarism. Upon my clarifications regarding the purpose of the study and the confidentiality of her personal information and data, she decided to participate in the study. I should note that after our initial conversation, it took her one term to respond to my invitation, after which she contacted me to see if I was still recruiting participants. At that time, I was looking for one more international Master’s student and was pleased to recruit her as the last participant. In addition to student recruitment challenges, it took me several months (after having obtained student permission to interview their instructors) to arrange times to interview the instructors due to their busy schedules. One instructor, Suzi, invited Arman’s tutor (Peter) to meet me because she was out of the country at the time.  I was eventually able to arrange times to meet with each instructor—except Suzi. These two happenstances—the unexpected response to my research topic and the scheduling difficulties, resulted in the prolongment of my data collection stage from one term   73 to one and a half years. It was a demanding period of time; however, it was not without its rewards. During this time, I engaged in an enriching experience, adding another layer of complexity to my data collection—researching up, across, and down. I researched up (in the case of course instructors), researched down (in the case of Master’s students), and researched across (in the case of doctoral students) (Kubota, 2017). Researching up enabled me to broaden my research scope and practice ethical considerations in interactions with an empowered group—course instructors, who were all established faculty members. Researching down helped me to voice the normally unheard voices of the students, and researching across resonated with my personal experience and offered me insider positionality. There is much more to be said about my researcher positionality; however, for the sake of relevance here, I will pause and leave further discussions of this matter to Section 4.12. 4.7 Data Sources Text-based interviews are among the popular techniques of data collection for case studies on source-based writing (e.g., Pecorari & Shaw, 2012; Shi, 2010, 2011, 2012). In my study, participating students were interviewed based on the texts they produced at three stages of their term-paper writing—the preparation stage (prior to writing drafts), the while-writing stage, and the modification stage. Their course instructors, who commented on their term papers, were interviewed as well. I also collected oral accounts of students and their instructors regarding their source-use practices and analyzed students’ textual data. Therefore, data were drawn from multiple sources, as will be further explicated below.    74 4.7.1 Course Documents and Term-Paper Drafts  I collected a range of course documents including course syllabi and other written instructions provided by instructors. These documents helped me understand the instructors’ expectations for term papers and topical options they offered to students to research and write about. Moreover, I collected each participant’s planning draft or outline (i.e., written rough ideas about the topic and content of their paper), their in-progress draft during their writing, and their completed term-paper draft, complete with source information. According to Goetz and LeCompte (1984), textual documents or “artifacts” can reveal valuable information and insights relevant to research questions that cannot be gained through oral accounts. 4.7.2 Text-Based Interviews According to Stake (1995), interviewing is the main road to multiple realities. The goal of interviewing is to learn what each interviewee thinks about a certain experience and to find out the shared meanings among people who live or work together (Rubin & Rubin, 2005). As Crabtree and Miller (1999) point out, the conversational nature of the interview technique—a known communication routine—works well for collecting data for diverse purposes. In this study, conducting three interviews with each student writer furnished me with an understanding of L1 and L2 student participants’ perceptions, challenges, strategies, motivations, and purposes of source use while writing their term papers. Moreover, conducting interviews with both students and instructors provided the opportunity to collect oral data from more than one source, thus, adding credibility and robustness to the study. After collecting their oral accounts regarding their experiences and perceptions about source use in academic writing, I asked each student to identify examples where they utilized source   75 texts in their writing to explain how the borrowed texts were selected and cited (or not cited) (Shi, 2011). The participating students were asked to also elaborate on the changes of their citation decisions during the writing process (Dong, 1996) and their purposes for doing so. Text-Based Interviews with Students The first set of text-based interviews was conducted after each student selected the topic of their paper in consultation with the course instructor and prepared a rough outline and initial reading list. During this interview, I solicited participants’ research and writing experiences and perceptions about using source texts in their term paper. The second text-based interviews took place whilst students were drafting their term paper and had already made some source-use decisions. Finally, the follow-up interview was scheduled after each participant had revised and submitted the final draft. The rationale for the three text-based interviews was to catch any modifications in the participants’ perspectives and practices during the process of writing from sources. One reason for conducting a qualitative study and collecting data over one academic semester was to allow me as the researcher to focus on the process of writing from sources and to trace students’ decision-making in the process of writing their term papers and using source texts. The total of three text-based interviews with each participant took an average of three hours.  The text-based interviews in this project were all semi-structured to allow for flexibility with minimum interference from the researcher. During the interviews, I raised occasional questions for further clarification. The list of interview questions that I used for each interview session with students is provided in Appendix E. The interview data were collected by note-taking and audio-recording.    76 Text-Based Interviews with Instructors For instructors, the single individual interview session was planned for after they had read and commented on students’ final papers. Interviews with the instructors took place in the instructors’ offices (except for the interview with Arman’s mentor, which took place in an empty classroom space) and were initially scheduled for 30 minutes. However, the interviews with Janice and Joy lasted over two hours each. Janice volunteered to discuss the topic in further detail, and, in the case of Joy, since she was the instructor for three of the participants (i.e., two doctoral and one Master’s), the conversation about the three students understandably took about two and a half hours. The list of interview questions that I used for interviewing instructors is provided in Appendix F.  4.8 Data Collection Procedure Three text-based interviews were conducted with each student participant during term one or term two of the university’s winter session, and data collection from students was foregone during the summer session due to the intensive nature of summer courses and the lack of adequate time intervals between interviews. At the end of the first interview session, I asked each student to contact me when they had completed their first drafts. I defined the first draft as a paper with at least a few main ideas and some supporting details—that is, not necessarily with introduction, conclusion, and reference sections completed, and far from being well polished and proofread. During the text-based interview, I asked each student participant to refer to examples of source use in their text and to comment on the process of source selection and integration and their purposes for citing the sources when direct quoting and paraphrasing. This self-selection and explanation process provides “insider accounts” (Harwood, 2006). This emic   77 approach allowed me to see students’ practices from their own perspectives on their produced texts. Therefore, I did not provide them with a list of citation purposes or functions to choose from, but, instead, offered them the freedom to ascribe as many motivations for source selection and purposes for source integration as they wished. For the instructors, I asked each of them, at the beginning of their single text-based interview with me, to comment on the final papers their respective student(s) had submitted, focusing on their source-based writing practices and any related comments they wrote on the students’ final papers. Despite my request that they keep their responses focused on their participating student’s drafts only, at times they commented on other aspects related to the source-use practices of students beyond their participant(s) and their term paper(s). As a result, I presented their thematized views separately, in Chapter 7. 4.9 Data Analysis Procedure  To ensure and enhance the trustworthiness of the results of the data analysis in this qualitative study, I strived to satisfy the five criteria suggested by Guba and Lincoln (1989) and Shenton (2004)—credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability, and authenticity. To increase credibility—the parallel of internal validity in quantitative research—I triangulated data from multiple sources, performed member checks, and conducted peer debriefings. The triangulation of data sources in my study (i.e., course documents, term-paper drafts, text-based interviews with students and instructors) mitigated subjectivity in the data analysis procedure, resulting in more accurate representations of the participants’ perspectives and practices. I also  did member checks with participants and regular peer debriefings to get feedback from a colleague, who was also doing PhD in academic writing. The second criterion for increasing the trustworthiness of this qualitative   78 research was transferability—which is parallel to external validity in quantitative research. To satisfy this criterion, I offered as much as detailed data as possible through thick descriptions (Merriam, 1998) of the context, participants, methodology, and conceptual frameworks employed. Thick descriptions facilitate the judgement of readers and those who wish to test transferability of the findings here to other contexts (Duff, 2008). The next factor was dependability—parallel to reliability, quantitatively speaking. Determining a clear procedure for recording the data and describing all the steps taken increased dependability in this study (Korstjens & Moser, 2018.) Identifying themes throughout the data, and reporting and supporting them as findings in Chapters 5, 6, and 7, also bolstered dependability. Fourthly, confirmability—similar to objectivity in quantitative research—was improved by collecting data from specific, accessible sources and by creating explicit, logical procedures for the analysis and interpretation of the data. The specificity and accessibility of the data sources and the explicit, logical data-analysis and chronological process-oriented interpretation procedures ensured confirmability to the highest extent possible. Finally, this study strived for authenticity—which, in the context of this study, refers to the degree that this research presents a balanced account of the values, perspectives and practices of the participants—by collecting students’ oral accounts, along with their texts and the original sources used in their writing process, at the three stages. Teachers’ comments on their students’ source-based writing practices (both in general and related to their writing samples) also raised authenticity by adding a new dimension to the students’ values and attitudes toward source use. I relied on the views and judgments of the course instructors to define what constituted successful source-use practices; their statuses as disciplinary insiders (i.e., expert members) in the areas about which students wrote their papers qualified them to   79 evaluate if/how their students’ source-based writing practices conformed to the expectations of their given fields. In sum, Guba and Lincoln (1989) and Shenton’s (2004) five criteria for trustworthiness in qualitative research laid the groundwork for the data analysis process.  I employed the thematic analysis method for data analysis (Clarke & Braun, 2014) to  generate themes during and following the data collection phase of my research. Specifically, I followed the five steps recommended by Clarke and Braun (2014): familiarizing oneself with the data, creating initial codes, looking for themes relevant to research questions, revising themes, and deciding on the themes to be used for generating the final results of the study. I first read participants’ oral accounts and textual productions repeatedly to familiarize myself with the data. I then looked for themes related to my research questions. For example, to answer the research question about of students’ perceptions and practices, I categorized and analyzed the data at two levels. At the macro level, I identified issues pertinent to students’ source-use practices and perceptions at Master’s and PhD levels (as presented and discussed in Chapters 5 and 6). In particular, I looked at the dilemmas they faced in the process of source use, and coded various strategies they employed to overcome these dilemmas and sources of support they relied upon in the process of writing from sources. At the micro level, I identified and coded individual students’ citation behaviours—specifically, source selection, source integration, and motivations and purposes they had for those source-use practices. In naming the themes, I first created initial codes based on participants’ explanations or keywords. For example, when describing the types of their source integration, students used key words such as “my own words,” “rephrase,” “paraphrase,” “words from the source,” “direct citation,” and “direct quotes.”  Later, after a closer reading of the transcripts and literature of previous research, I revised and categorized these students’ 80 key words into three types: paraphrasing, Appropriate Direct Quotes (ADQs), and Inappropriate Direct Quotes (IDQs). In the same manner, I analyzed and grouped instructors’ comments about influential factors on students’ source-use practices into four major themes; i.e., the role of mentorship, authorial identity, preparatory strategies and disciplinarybackgrounds (as shown and discussed in Chapter 7). Figure 4.1 illustrates these levels of analysis. As shown, the two types of micro-analysis are equally important and were analyzed in their sequential order (i.e., source selection first and source integration second). Figure 4.1. Macro- and micro-analyses of data I embarked on analyzing and interpreting the data, bearing in mind the three guiding conceptual frames that I drew upon for my project. CoP helped me interpret the themes about the role of supervisors, instructors, and peers in participants’ adjustment to their academic communities. The notion of Forms of Capital offered me a vantage point for discussing students’ dilemmas, as well as solutions, in adopting standards of textual borrowing and source use in their writing as a means of empowerment, with offers of new forms of capital.   81 Lastly, the Dialogism standpoint provided a window to explicate students’ issues with the notion of appropriate versus inappropriate source use. 4.10 Ethical Considerations  In my study, I closely followed UBC’s ethical research guidelines. During the recruitment procedures, participants were clearly informed that their participation was voluntary, and they could withdraw from the study at any time during the research period without penalty. Prior to their consent, all participants were informed about the purpose and procedure of the study. Those who agreed to participate were asked to sign a form consenting to their voluntary participation. Moreover, pseudonyms were assigned to ensure the anonymity of all of the participants, students, and instructors (See all of the forms required for the BREB application in the Appendices section—Appendices B, C, D, E, and F). All of the collected data—recorded and written—have been kept safely and have only been accessible to me and my supervisory committee members. 4.11 Researcher Positionality  To provide a foundation for the discussion of my researcher positionality, I will first present a brief sketch of  my own engagement with the English language throughout different stages of my life. I have been an EFL/ESL learner and writer since I was nine years old and have been teaching and researching in the field of TEFL and TESL for the past two decades. In fact, the act of writing, in both my L1 and L2, has been an inseparable part of my life journey since childhood. I began my English-language learning in a private after-school language institute in my hometown, Shiraz, where I learned to read and write English words through rhymes and songs. After receiving my English-language diploma from ILI (Iran Language Institute), the most reputable and trusted language school in the country, I   82 determined to pursue my education in English-language teaching. I applied shortly after to an undergraduate program at Shiraz Azad University, where I first encountered research-paper writing. Until my Bachelor’s degree, my only textual production in English had been contemporary-style poems, influenced by popular Persian poets from the 1990s. In my research-paper writing, I was expected to read external sources and appropriately draw on them in my term papers. Drawing on English sources for academic writing—without any prior training—was a highly demanding and completely unfamiliar task for me at the time. I clearly remember my concerns about the vagueness of the boundaries of appropriate source-based writing and the many questions and doubts I had in that regard—some of which have remained with me to this day. Despite this, I managed to successfully complete my undergraduate degree by conforming as much as possible to the expectations of my instructors. With the encouragement and support of my parents and a number of my instructors, I determined to continue my education at the graduate level and, upon passing a competitive entrance exam, was admitted to the MA program in the field of TEFL in the Foreign Languages and Linguistics department of Shiraz State University, one of the most renown language departments in Iran. For my MA thesis, I decided to examine the relevance of teaching methodologies to the use of learning strategies by EFL learners, mostly focusing on the psycholinguistic elements contributing to student practices. Through my Master’s thesis research project, I observed and analyzed some aspects of students’ challenges with learning academic writing skills and their strategies to overcome them; this investigation, I found very insightful to my own practices.   83 In the following years, during my service as a university instructor in Arsanjan University, I had the opportunity to view more closely the range of issues that novice English learners faced in their learning, including issues with academic writing. I developed a special interest in source use in academic writing, as I dealt with many students with barriers and uncertainties in this regard—many of which resonated with my own experiences. Upon embarking on my doctoral studies in TESL, I became passionate about learning more about novice writers’ issues with writing—particularly, research writing. Therefore, in my studies toward a doctoral degree, I decided to examine closely how student writers react to academic writing assignments—where drawing on external sources is a requirement. Some of the questions that floated around in my mind for years included: How do students use and integrate information from sources with their personal ideas? How aware are they about appropriate versus inappropriate textual borrowing and various types of source use? What are possible variations in source use practices of students from different backgrounds? What are expert writers’ (i.e., instructors’) views on the use of source information by novices? These and similar questions ultimately led to the design and completion of this research project, where I sought to understand the process of novice source use in academic textual production, as well as relevant negotiations on this topic among students and instructors. Such academic and professional trajectory informed my researcher positionality as a second-language doctoral student who has been researching down, across, and up (Kubota, 2017) within my own discipline.  My situated positionality (Pillow, 2003)—as an L2 writer, teacher, and researcher in the context of a major research-intensive western university—biases my perspective of source use as a problem specific to L2 student writers only. To counterbalance this, I   84 recruited both L1 and L2 students into this study. Moreover, I experienced shifting positionality as I interviewed master’s students as a more experienced writer, PhD students as a peer, and faculty members as a student writer and researcher. During some of my interactions with Master’s students, participants sought my advice on their source-use practices and discussed with me their uncertainties; however, since I had not intended to intervene instructionally, I avoided adopting the role of expert and instead asked questions to raise their awareness about their own source-use practices and decisions. (I did promise those participants that I would give voice to their challenges and concerns through my study and advocate for further support for them, which I have done in later chapters.) I need to acknowledge that my interactions with the doctoral participants resonated with me most since they were—as I was—positioned in the demanding role of  emerging scholar—a research writer who is expected to be simultaneously novice and advanced. Through interactions with instructors—faculty members in my fields—I played a double-sided role as learner and researcher, a position with both rewards and challenges. On the one hand, it allowed me to collect their perspectives on the topic of my interest and to see student practices from their scholarly perspectives; on the other hand, as a doctoral student researcher, I found it somewhat difficult to guide them through interviews (e.g., asking them to refocus their comments on their specific students’ papers if they began to speak more generally about source use). Finally, by conducting this research within my discipline, I benefited from having an insider view about the topics of student papers and issues they raised during the interview sessions.    85 4.12 Conclusion I opted for a qualitative study as the most appropriate method to explore and reveal the multiplicity and complexity of academic writing and academic-writing pedagogy, as theorized in the scholarship in the field (e.g., Duff, 2008). This method helped me find answers to my research questions. In this chapter, I outlined the design of my qualitative study and described the setting, participants, and procedures of my data collection and data analysis. I also reflected on the challenges of data collection, and my researcher positionality. In the following three chapters, I will provide the findings of this study in response to each of the two research questions. In Chapter 5, I will detail the four Master’s students’ engagements with source texts as they drafted their term papers. In Chapter 6, I will discuss the process and specifications of the PhD students’ source-based writing. Finally, in Chapter 7, I will outline the salient themes raised in the analyses of the text-based interview data with the course instructors.     86 Chapter 5: Source-Based Writing by Master’s Students: Moving from Margins to the Core of Community 5.1 Overview of Chapter  This chapter reports on the thematic analyses of the twelve text-based interviews in my study—that is, the three rounds of text-based interviews with each of the four Master’s students, one local and three international, prior to, during, and after writing research papers for their graduate courses—drawing mainly on the concept of Community of Practice (CoP; Lave & Wenger, 1991), and supported by the concepts of Forms of Capital (Bourdieu, 1991) and Dialogism (Bakhtin, Emerson, & Holquist, 1986). Analyzing students’ perceptions and practices of source use at three phases of their writing (i.e., the planning phase, the drafting phase, and the revising phase) offered a vantage point to track the process of their source-based writing and the modifications that had taken place in their perceptions and practices during this process. Data analyses in this chapter have been organized chronologically, based on the three semi-structured text-based interviews with the four Master’s students: Alice, Elena, Sally, and Wendy. In the first section (i.e., 5.2), I will present the analyses of the students’ views with respect to source use at the time of the first interview, focusing on the four participants’ perceptions of source-based writing based on their past experiences, initial thoughts about the research papers they planned to write, and the expected writing support. The second section (i.e., 5.3) will illuminate the participants’ selection and integration of sources, and their citation decisions in the process of forming their drafts—that is, their use of paraphrases, appropriate use of direct quotes (ADQs), and inappropriate use of direct quotes (IDQs). In the third section of the chapter (i.e., 5.4), I will report findings by drawing on the   87 data from the third round of text-based interviews, that is, after the students had completed their final drafts. In this section, modifications in participants’ use of citations and types of source integration will be analyzed and discussed. In all three sections, I will strive to highlight the development of each student’s process of source use over the term, along with the pertinent challenges and strategies in this process. 5.2 Road-Mapping  To understand students’ views about source-based writing, first, I inquired into the four students’ familiarity with the key concepts related to source-based writing, including use of citations, textual borrowing, and plagiarism. They responded by drawing on their earlier encounters with these terms, whether in their previous institutions or in their current programs. As a case in point, Alice shared a personal story about her experience with source use during her undergraduate program in Business English from China, which led to her current practices of writing from sources. In her undergraduate program, Alice was expected to form a research committee to write a graduating paper. She commented on her experience at the time6: Alice: [My paper] was about ecofeminism topic. Later, it got complicated and one of the committee members said that, “It’s like you just copy things from the Internet or other resources . . . you have few ideas from yourself.”  Nasrin: And how did you respond to that?  Alice: I couldn’t explain [the answer to] that question, and I didn’t want to be rude. So, I just gave them [the committee] my reasons, and I told them, “If I want to analyze ecofeminism, I need a lot of background information to deliver the reasons why I use this, why it happened at that time . . . and I can’t come up with my own ideas on that, right? So, I need to kind of involve a lot of reasons [from sources]” . . . I didn’t think it is unreasonable if you use so many ideas to back up yours.                                                    6 [Sic] will be used not for editorial purposes but to clarify instances where meaning may be ambiguous in student writing samples.   88 Alice’s experience resonates with the findings reported in earlier studies on the practices of novice L2 writers (e.g., Abasi, et al., 2006; Harwood & Petrić, 2012), where students’ lack of authoritative views toward their source-based writing was reported as problematic. Alice then shared the same paper with her mother—a university professor in the same town in China—to receive her mother’s input on Alice’s source-use practices. After checking her paper, her mother commented, “Your practice is totally fine.” Having received conflicting comments on her source-based writing from the committee member and her mother, Alice was confused about how much to cite. To safeguard her current writing from what she called the “danger of plagiarism,” she decided to rely heavily on the use of citations. Alice’s attempts to collect relevant and privileged textual capital (Starfield, 2002) through drawing on available scholarship resulted in source-use imbalance—in this case, an over-dependency on sources. The kind of feedback Alice had received from the committee member in her undergraduate program—an expert member in her disciplinary CoP (Lave & Wenger, 1991)—was more punitive than pedagogical as Alice only received criticism without specific guidance. She, therefore, still felt insecure and perplexed with the use of sources due to a lack of much-needed academic training and support from her relevant CoP. Alice’s heavy reliance on the use of sources was also commented on by her instructor in her current program. (See Chapter 7.) This finding is aligned with previous findings about L2 students’ variant practices of textual borrowing and the less pedagogical approaches to those practices (e.g., Walker, 2009). While the approach of Alice’s previous committee member to her textual-borrowing practices had worked as the most straightforward and confrontational at   89 the time, it proved not to be pedagogical and effective in the long term. In fact, as Matsuda (2012) well argues, Alice was punished for what her teachers did not teach her! Also commenting on her previous experience, Sally, another student with the same first language (Mandarin) but who had studied in a different discipline (i.e., communication studies), said she had never encountered any source-use dilemmas in her undergraduate program in China. In response to my question about her understanding of appropriate textual borrowing, she explained:  Sally: Textual borrowing means that, when you want to cite someone’s idea and especially this idea is not from you, clearly, it is from someone else. And, according to the conventions here in western academia, you should specify where is this resource from and what are their ideas, so I think that is text borrowing.  Nasrin: Where did you learn about that?  Sally: No one told me. No one gave me any instructions about that. I learned it through practicing writing papers here in Canada . . . I had a very different understanding of it [set of rules and expectations surrounding source use] in China, and I didn’t think it was a problem at all because my professors didn’t point it out.  Although both Sally and Alice completed their previous degrees in China, their disparate experiences with source use might be due to disciplinary variations (i.e., business English vs. communication studies) in dealing with students’ citation practices across Chinese higher-education institutions or perhaps different individual experiences. Similar findings have been highlighted in other studies (e.g., Rinnert & Kobayashi, 2005; Shi, 2012a), assigning disparate source-use practices to variant disciplinary source-use standards and expectations. The turning point in Sally’s view of source-use practices—in particular, in terms of the use of paraphrase versus direct quote—took place in her current program, due to the advice she received from a peer in one of the graduate courses she had taken earlier. Sally: Personally, I have experienced [a] very hard way to navigate myself and socialize myself into the academic discourse of my field . . . You know, the stupid   90 thing about me is that, in the beginning, when I came [to the current program], because no one taught me how to do paraphrasing or citation, I just had to read by myself, and I found people do a lot of direct citation in their papers . . . I thought that, “OK, I should do direct citations [quotation], the more the better.” So, during my one, two, and three semesters, I did a lot of direct citation, and no one told me it was not good, and then, recently, I talked to one peer . . . She read my paper and said, “Wow, why do you have many direct citations [quotes]? If I were you, I would do paraphrasing.” I said, “What? Really? Why?” She replied, “You are expected to do paraphrasing” . . . and then I got this idea, “OK, I am expected to do paraphrasing” . . . after that I saw a change in the instructors’ comments on my assignments . . . and I got much higher marks!  The above incident had a large impact on Sally’s future practices. She began to realize the importance of paraphrasing and understood better what professors expected from an appropriate source-based academic text. Although her peer was at the same academic level (i.e., a Master’s level), she acted as an expert member to Sally to help her socialize (Duff, 2008) into the academic expectations of writing from sources. Extended experience with acceptable source-use practices had given Sally’s peer the knowledge of an expert member to practice the activities being exercised in the core of her CoP—a core into which Sally was endeavoring to gain access. From a Bourdieuian point of view, Sally learned from her peer and experienced through her grades that paraphrasing (in general) contained much more capital in academic writing than using direct quotes did, as it represented her ability to join a textual dialogue using her own words. (It should be noted that, although Sally became aware of the capital that paraphrasing afforded her compared to direct quotation, in the first draft of her current paper, she was still struggling with the balance between the two types of source integration and, resultingly, still relied heavily on the use of direct quotes. Details of her practices will be discussed later in this chapter.)   91 Like Sally, Wendy (also from mainland China but who had majored in education) had not received any training or warnings on her source-based writing practices in the country of her undergraduate degree. She clarified that: Source-use practices are very different there [in her previous program in China]. You write 60-70% from sources and do not need to cite that . . . just a footnote is fine in many cases. I had no problem with [using] sources in my papers during my B.A.  Wendy emphasized that, to her surprise, at the beginning of all of the courses she had taken in her current program in Canada, instructors explained the significance of using sources correctly, in accordance with APA style, to avoid plagiarism, yet she had not identified any relevant sources of support in the department. Wendy expressed her concerns with the use of sources not only at the writing stage but also at the reading stage when she said, “When I am reading others’ papers, I am afraid of not understanding what their main idea is. So, I prefer to use the direct quotes to show what they say exactly.” Wendy, thus, formed a habit of using exact words from sources in order not to misrepresent the original authors’ ideas. Previous research has also confirmed the connection between the use of exact words and the reading comprehension ability of student writers (e.g., Roig, 1999, 2001; Sun, 2012). Wendy explained that being an L2 writer in her current program—where most of her peers are L1—had had a negative impact on her progress and had led to her receiving lower marks on her papers than what she had anticipated. She did not specify if she had compared her grades with other peers yet was certain that being an L2 writer had disadvantaged her in graduate school since her writing was constantly compared to her L1 classmates’. Of the four Master’s students, only Elena identified herself as an L1 writer. She had completed her Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in North American universities (i.e., in the United States and Canada). Elena’s view of source use and her definition of textual   92 borrowing appeared to be more consistent with the institutional standards, and she defined her views with less hesitancy. In fact, she was the only one among the four who had received formal training on appropriate source use in her previous programs—who had, in essence, collected more relevant capital. This could have explained her confidence in expressing her understanding of textual borrowing. Elena: The purpose of textual borrowing would be to use other people’s discoveries, observations, and facts in order to better support your own claims. But, of course, you have to acknowledge where you’ve got those facts from so it doesn’t look like you made them up and you give credit to the people who found them.  Nasrin: That’s true. Did you receive any training on how to use sources in the previous programs you were in?  Elena: Yes; we had very small classes throughout my undergraduate, so, from freshman to senior year, we had about 15 people in English seminars, and, for every English literature class, we got so many hands-on support that I learned how to cite properly through instructions.  Apparently, in the case of Elena, due to the dynamics of her educational context (i.e., small class sizes and rounds of pedagogical feedback she received on her writing, including feedback, in her undergraduate program, on her source-use practices), she had the opportunity to gradually socialize into the appropriate disciplinary discourses and writing practices (Duff, 2010, 2012; Zappa & Duff, 2015) of her academic community over time. Elena seemed not to be experiencing the dilemmas reported by Alice, Sally, and Wendy since she had already passed the initial stage of learning appropriate citation use in her previous educational context before entering graduate school and possessed the required capital to negotiate her point of view through the textual dialogue with the original authors she cited. While Alice, Sally, and Wendy revealed their insecurities both in writing research papers according to the acceptable academic standards and in striking a balance in the use of   93 source texts, Elena simply emphasized the importance of giving due credit to original authors. 5.2.1 Term-Paper Writing Plans and Support Expected During the first interview, I asked participants to elaborate on their final paper requirements, the topic they planned to research and write about, and the support they expected to receive in the process of writing, particularly, in the process of writing from sources. The first set of interviews was scheduled for around the middle of the semester when the students would have some idea about their final paper and the possible options for the topics they planned to write about. Table 5.1 presents the final-paper requirements instructors provided in their course outlines.  Table 5.1 Master’s Students’ Final Paper Requirements Student Name Type of Paper Required Length Alice A bibliography and literature review of existing scholarly research about your field of study 7-10 pages Sally Two options: 1. Challenges and solutions for language teaching and learning in a particular type of domain, drawing on at least 10 references 2. Detailed comparison-and-contrast between the two course textbooks and the work and perspectives they represent 10-12 pages Wendy Three options: 1. One’s narrative plus a critical commentary that is rooted in some of the literature explored in class. 2. An academically-focused paper examining a particular issue pertaining to research-based theatre 3. A topic involving theatre/drama education Around 10 pages, plus references   94 that relates to one’s current research area and interest Elena Discussion on a topic of interest using the readings of the course and the references in the library 15-20 pages, plus references  While all papers were required to be research-based, only Sally’s instructor specified a minimum number of sources to be consulted (i.e., 10 references). Based on the final paper requirements, three of the four participants (i.e., Alice, Sally, and Elena) prepared rough drafts, with multiple in-text citations, prior to the first interview session. Table 5.2 presents the details of the three participants’ initial drafts at the time of the first interview, including the number of words they wrote, the number of sources they consulted, and the number of drafts they had written.   Table 5.2 Specifications of Master’s Students’ Initial Drafts (First Interview) Student Name Planning Draft Format Number of Words Number of Sources Consulted Number of Planning Drafts Alice Multi-paragraph 1,212 7 3 Sally Multi-paragraph 1,044 13 1 Wendy N/A N/A N/A N/A Elena Annotated bibliography 3,046 12 1  Wendy was the only participant who did not have a rough draft at the time of the first interview. When I asked about her term-paper writing plans, she was certain that, of the three assignment options she had, she would choose to write about her narrative, which would   95 include a critical commentary, rooted in some of the class literature. At the time of the first interview, she did not yet have a specified reading list. Since the length for her assignment, specified in the course outline, was for about 10 pages, Wendy planned to include about the same number of sources (i.e., 10), as she believed one source per page would be sufficient. A few days later, she informed me that she had changed her mind and had now decided on the second option (i.e., an academically-focused paper examining a particular issue pertaining to research-based theatre). In explaining her decision, Wendy said that she preferred to stay away from writing critically and wanted to “write objectively.” “It is challenging for me to do critiques in my writing,” she had said. It should be noted that, at the time of the first interview, Wendy had not written an outline or a planning draft for the term paper. She was not sure if she should seek support from her academic community members, including peers and the course instructor during the writing stage. Due to the change in Wendy’s writing plans, I needed to follow it up with another interview to ask about her new topic and her updated plans for preparing the draft. This time, I found Wendy more confident, talking about her paper on Living Newspaper (i.e., a form of theatre). Wendy also mentioned that she had brainstormed ideas for the organization and content of her paper and that she was going to have her first draft ready by our second interview. In contrast to Wendy, who did not seek any support from her community, Sally was positive about receiving support from one of her peers—that is, the same peer who had given her the useful feedback about source use in the previous term. Sally emphasized that her peer’s comments had worked as a key to the world of acceptable forms of textual capital and had eventually led to higher marks in her other courses; therefore, she was counting on the same peer’s support once again for her current paper. At the time of the first interview, Sally   96 had created a multi-paragraph planning draft with 1,044 words. She had also included thirteen in-text citations, which was the highest number among the participants. Sally mentioned she was planning to consult her peer as soon as her first draft was ready. She emphasized she would ask her peer to check her source-use practices before submitting her paper to the course instructor. Compared to Wendy and Sally, Alice’s case was unique because, from the outset of the term, she had had the opportunity to receive a lot of writing support from her course instructor, due to the small number of students in the course. At the time of the first interview, Alice had already received two rounds of teacher comments on the planning draft for her term-paper (at both the language and content levels), leading to the completion of three planning drafts by the time of the first interview. She seemed highly satisfied with this “excitingly different experience,” as she described it. Nasrin: So, you sent drafts of proposal [a.k.a. planning draft] to the instructor, and she gave you feedback?  Alice: Yeah, she gave me feedback, and then I applied them and sent it again, and she still gave me more feedback, and I could keep changing that [the planning draft]. You know what was amazing is that, because she had time, she gave me a lot of feedback!  The small enrolment of the course worked to the benefit of this novice academic writer. The consistent support of the instructor facilitated Alice’s learning process and guided her peripheral practices toward the desirable core activities in her disciplinary writing community (Pecorari, 2006). Of course, this level of support is normally unavailable to graduate students, with the average number of registrants in each course being around twenty students. Elena, the last Master’s student, had, at the planning stage, selected the topic of her paper, which was on language assessment relevant to her ESL teaching context. During the   97 first interview, she shared with me the list of sources she wanted to consult while writing her paper. When asked about the support she might seek during her paper-writing, Elena said that she was not planning on obtaining any help for this paper because she was confident that she could accomplish the task on her own—by relying on the textual capital she had already accrued. Comparing Elena with Wendy, although neither of them had counted on external support, their reasons were quite dissimilar; Wendy did not have anyone in mind to approach for help if she needed it, while Elena did not feel the exigency for that support as she was already familiar with the nuts and bolts of term-paper writing that drew on source texts. 5.2.2 Summary: “The Elephant in the Dark” The purpose of the first round of interviews was to elicit participants’ perceptions of their source-based writing practices based on their previous experiences with academic writing in their CoPs. Due to their disparate past experiences, these students held variant understandings of what constituted appropriate source use, and their individual uptake impacted their current expectations. While none of the three international Master’s students—Alice, Sally, and Wendy—had received formal training on source use in their previous Chinese institutions, only Alice faced punitive remarks from one of her undergraduate research-committee members. Alice and Sally seemed to share a commonality in their over-reliance on sources. Moreover, Sally and Wendy highlighted the adverse role of being an L2 writer writing in a second language on their source-use practices. Listening to the four Master’s participants’ responses with respect to their knowledge of source use, I realized there was not a single agreed-upon definition among them of what constitutes appropriate source use. In fact, the individual responses I received in the conversations reminded me of the old, well-known story by Jalal al-Din Rumi, “The Elephant in the Dark,”   98 where people attempting to ascertain what an elephant looked like in the dark all claimed different shapes and sizes, depending on the body part with which they were in contact. Like the people in the story making attempts to describe a huge, unknown animal based on their limited understanding and experience, my participants strived to define appropriate source use, drawing on their background knowledge and past experiences with source-based writing. They looked at the source-integration process from their respective angles, illuminating the behemoth using their flashlights of experience; this, of course, resulted in their missing other aspects of the beast. For example, while Sally and Wendy touched only the trunk of the elephant in the dark (i.e., the use of direct quotes, though their inappropriate citations went unnoticed by their previous programs), Alice felt not only the trunk but also the head of the elephant (i.e., having received a warning from her committee member, which led to some degree of awareness about the use of direct quotes with in-text citations). However, this limited experience left Alice with knowledge of only two aspects of the elephant, which resulted in an incomplete understanding of the whole animal (i.e., Alice tended to over-cite, which left her writing replete with direct quotes). Out of the four Master’s participants, Elena described the most complete image of the elephant. She had touched one side of the elephant in the dark, from trunk to tail (i.e., she had experienced appropriate and balanced use of direct quotes, paraphrasing, and APA style), yet she did not yet have a full idea of the animal. (Later, in Chapter 7, when presenting Elizabeth’s [Elena’s instructor] comments on her source-based writing, I will explain why Elena had an incomplete picture of the elephant.) For these newcomers, the light switch—which could be turned on with the assistance of expert members from the CoP (i.e., their supervisors and course instructors), who were familiar with the room configuration—was hidden in the dark   99 and hard to locate due to a lack of guidance. While all four had been allowed to enter the room and touch the elephant (i.e., they were accepted into their graduate program, their new CoP, and involved in source-based academic writing), their understanding of the expectations (i.e., appropriate source use) was on the periphery (Petrić, 2012), and they needed some guidance from expert members who had the ability to bestow capital upon them. 5.3 Drafting the Paper: Drifting to the Core The second round of interviews took place after the participating students informed me that they had completed their first drafts. Prior to the second-interview sessions, I had asked each participant to e-mail me a copy of their working draft so that I could go through it and look at their source-use practices beforehand. Table 5.3 presents the specifications of the students’ drafts at the time of the second interview. While the students’ reference lists were incomplete (as in Alice’s and Wendy’s cases) or had not yet been added to the drafts (as in Sally’s and Elena’s cases), the source integration had taken place, and the students had integrated a total of 107 in-text citations into their while-writing drafts.  Table 5.3 Specifications of Master’s Student While-Writing Drafts (Second Interview) Student Name Reference List Included Number of In-Text Citations Number of Words in While-Writing Draft In-Text Citation Density (per 1,000 words) Alice Yes; 6 sources 12 1,959 6.1 Sally No 66 1,623 40.6 Wendy Yes; 1 source 19 1,966 9.6 Elena No 10 2,839 3.5   100 Average - 26.8 2,096.8 12.7  Sally had prepared the shortest draft, with 1,623 words. Yet, her draft had the highest number of in-text citations (n = 66). In fact, it had the highest citation density (i.e., 40.6 in-text citations per 1,000 words, as discussed by Hyland, 2000), with more in-text citations than the total number of in-text citations in the papers written by the other three students (n = 41). Alice’s draft was only seven words shorter than Wendy’s (i.e., 1,959 and 1,966 words respectively) but contained only 12 in-text citations. Of the four papers, Elena’s paper contained the highest number of words (n = 2,839) and the lowest citation density of 3.5 in-text citations per 1,000 words. Compared to the average citation density in the discipline of applied linguistics (i.e., 10.8 citations per 1,000 words, as discussed in Hyland, 2000), Alice’s and Wendy’s papers were closer to the average, while Sally’s and Elena’s papers fell at two extremes—the former being very high and the latter very low in terms of citation density. Overall, the citation density in the drafts of these four Master’s students in education was higher than the average suggested by Hyland (i.e., an average of 12.7 citations per 1,000 words for the four participants, compared with Hyland’s average of 10.8 citations). 5.3.1 What to Include, What to Exclude: The Process of Source Selection and Motivation I embarked on a second interview session, inviting participants to explain their source-selection processes and general motivations for their selection of sources. Participants described how they found sources and elaborated on their motivations and rationales for citing them. These processes and motivations, as I will present in this next section, highlight divergences and similarities among the individuals’ approaches to the selection of sources and between the practices of the L2 writers and the only L1 writer in the group.   101 Alice: I Used These Sources to Show What I Say Is Important. In her first draft, Alice had 16 in-text citations and six entries in her reference list. For the writing of her paper, as she had explained in the first interview, Alice had counted on the support of an expert member in her community, her course instructor. She had asked her instructor to introduce major sources to her. When she received the three relevant sources, she checked them and found more sources in the reference lists of those sources. According to Alice, one of the sources her instructor recommended was a reference book in the field of adult education. It guided her significantly in forming her argument, and she consulted that single source multiple times. When selecting chunks of source texts, Alice used the highlighting strategy. She emphasized the importance of highlighting relevant parts of a source text as she was trying to narrow down the information she desired to include in her writing: “When I’m reading the important sections, I highlight things. After that, I will revisit these highlights and cut the parts I don’t want.” Afterwards, Alice would create a new file for the highlighted parts. For the sake of this term paper, Alice created two “summary documents” based on the two areas she was reading and selecting text from—that is, adult education (AE) and human resource development (HRD). According to her, doing so helped her compare the main discussions in each of the two fields and come up with a better understanding of the limitations of the studies in each area. Although Alice used this strategy of juxtaposing original texts from several readings and paraphrasing them together—“I just make the documents and put them there because sometimes I think it might be good I paraphrase them together [later] instead of paraphrase one sentence at a time”—she was not sure about the effectiveness of her practice and thought   102 that it did not always work well, especially time-wise. Therefore, Alice said that, after her selection of important chunks from sources next time, she would place them directly into her paper. Alice: I was thinking that direct writing the paper is more effective. I still have my highlights, but, after that, I think I do not put them in a separate document. I put highlights in my paper and do the massage there . . . in the paper . . . [I mean] change them.  The use of the word massage seems relevant to Alice’s practice, as she was trying to integrate several sources into her text, seeking desired forms of textual integration—as Ouellette (2008) described, to allow interaction among authors’ views in one’s own writing. (More on Alice’s textual integration in Section 5.3.2.) By integrating sources into her writing, Alice emphasized that she could support the importance of her claims with evidence. Here is an example:  Alice’s text: Both adult education (AE) and human resource development (HRD) have grown tremendously in the last quarter century focusing on workplace education, but the nature of their relationship remains contentious. Belzer, Bierema, Cseh, Ellinger, Ruona, and Watkins (2001) state that “the HRD field is ‘marginalized’ in adult education” positions [sic] HRD subordinately under the umbrella of AE [Adult Education].   Alice’s comment: I use these sources to show what I say is important. Other people are talking about it, too.  In this example, Alice made a claim concerning the marginalized position of HRD in the field of adult education, which was the focus of her paper. To highlight the significance of this claim, she referred to the work of a group of scholars in the relevant field. Alice was motivated to show the audience—here, the course instructor—that her argument was significant and worthy of both attention and inclusion in the dialogic textual interactions taking place in her field of research interest.   103 Sally: I Used a Lot of Citations to Show I Have Read a Lot. Unlike Alice’s experience with source selection, Sally found her sources without any help from the instructor, mainly making use of Google Scholar. One of the sources she found was a PhD dissertation related to her research topic. She closely checked its reference list and decided to use several sources from the list. For Sally, a strategy that she employed to pull information from sources was what she called the “highlighting-and-taking-snapshots” strategy. Sally: [I]t’s very useful for second language writers . . . highlighting the most important parts and taking the snapshots. I recommend for L2 writers because, for example, when I read a scholar’s paper, I notice that, as an L2 writer and reader, I cannot remember. I cannot remember all the points or key arguments by this writer, so that is why I need to take some notes. I have noticed there is a big difference between L2 writers and L1 writers . . . they do not need snapshots at all. They will paraphrase in their tables in the annotated biography. They do not need to do that.  Nasrin: How do you know? Did you compare it with your L1 peers?  Sally: Yes, she is my co-author of a paper. So, I get to know her habits, and she sent me her annotated biography, and I found that she can do . . . like rephrase chunks. Sometimes, I cannot paraphrase it well, and I do not have much time to do that. So, I have to do the snapshot, but they [L1 writers] do not need it. They just paraphrase it . . . I think it’s very helpful because, although I paraphrase here, but sometimes I am not so sure of the quality . . . so I always go back [to the snapshot] and read it again and again . . . when I do my paraphrasing, I am looking at the original text again so that I can do paraphrasing much better . . . and to make sure that I am not using the same word, but I am paraphrasing the idea . . . I think it’s very helpful. For other L2 writers, I recommend that.  Here, Sally repeatedly positioned herself as an L2 writer and differentiated her habits (or habitus [Bourdieu, 1991; Calhoun, 2006]) of source use from the practices of her L1 peer. At the same time, she claimed ownership of a useful strategy for writing from sources and recommended it to other novice L2 writers. Her comments suggest that L2 students do spend more time on paraphrasing to make sure that they are paraphrasing the original ideas accurately, without using too much of the original texts. Similar to the participant in   104 Harwood and Petrić’s (2012) study, displaying her extensive reading through the use of citations was a major motivation for Sally to select source texts. For example, in Sally’s while-writing draft, she cited seven sources in one of her sentences: “Moreover, these features can signal speaker’s [sic] home region, because people from various regions adopt certain unique features (Dong, 2010; Li, 2004; Luke, 1990; Starr, 2005; Song, 2010; Su, 2009; Zhang, 2005).” When explaining the rationale for citing all of these sources, Sally said, “Here, I used a lot of citations to show my instructor I have read a lot.” Although, she had only checked the titles of some of those references, she thought it would be impressive to include them to show her instructor how extensively she had read on her topic. This finding is aligned with the report from Harwood and Petrić’s (2012) study, where student participants attempted to tailor their source-use practices to gain capital and impress their instructors. Wendy: I Cited These Sources to Get Support. Unlike Sally and Alice, Wendy began her research with the course textbook but did not find it very helpful for her topic. She then e-mailed the course instructor for some advice, a course of action she did not expect to take at the time of the first interview. In fact, she later told me that my question in the first interview about possible sources of support gave her the idea that she could ask her instructor for help in looking for relevant readings. As a result of Wendy’s request, her instructor put her in contact with a scholar in her area of research from an Australian university, and she received a good number of useful sources for her paper—a turn of events that went beyond Wendy’s initial expectation, as she explained to me.  In discussions about her rationale for drawing on sources, Wendy mentioned that supporting her claims was a major motivator for citing certain sources. For instance, Wendy   105 explained that she used Liller and Smith (1989) as an important source to give credit to her claim regarding the origin of the key term, Living Newspaper, in her paper. The following example—which includes her oral comment to me later—represents how she integrated this source into her writing. Wendy’s text: Despite its origin in Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution (Liller & Smith, 1989), the term is found [sic] more associated with the Federal Theatre Project (FTP) in the United States of the 1930s.  Wendy’s comment: I read in several sources that the origin [of Living Newspaper] is in Russia, and then it is connected to FTP, so, to support my idea, I cited this source [Liller & Smith, 1989] here.  By drawing on a more established author’s capital, Wendy lent credence to her claim as she attempted to join into the scholarly dialogue through her text. Previous studies have also reported the support of one’s claims as a motivation for students’ citation of sources. For example, in their investigation of a successful L2 graduate student’s assignment writing, Petrić and Harwood (2013) found that a student participant used sources for two reasons, one of which was to support her arguments. Elena: What Felt Good Often Worked! In comparison to the other participants, Elena was more prepared for and, therefore, more independent in writing her draft because she had collected and consulted all of the sources before drafting her paper. For an earlier assignment in the course, Elena needed to prepare a class presentation, and she selected the same topic for her paper; therefore, she had already narrowed down her reading list by the time she wrote her first draft. Interestingly, Elena brought forth very different rationale for using sources in her paper. According to her, “gut feeling,” “intuition,” and “what feels good” guide her when she reaches certain points in her writing where sources might be needed. She feels these inner promptings “often [work]!”   106 It is possible that she felt more comfortable in the dialogue with the original authors she cited due to her possession of more valued capital. It is thought-provoking to note how distinctively she viewed her reliance on sources while writing her term paper. For Elena, the process of source selection occurs so naturally and unconsciously that she did not have specific motivations in mind to justify her citation decisions. Yet, Alice, Sally, and Wendy were quite conscious about their source-use processes and had well-defined motivations for selecting source texts. In the following section, I will apply my lens of textual analysis as I zoom in on the types of source integration students used in their source-based writing, along with their purposes for using each type of integration.  5.3.2 Types and Purposes of Source Integration  During the second interview, the four participants explained not only about how and why they pulled information from sources but also about how they integrated source information into their writing and the purposes behind each type of source integration. Based on the students’ comments on their drafts, three types of source integration were identified: (a) paraphrasing, (b) direct quotes with in-text citations (hereafter referred to as ADQs—appropriate use of direct quotes), and (c) direct quotes without in-text citations (hereafter referred to as IDQs—inappropriate use of direct quotes). These three categories were self-identified by the participants during the text-based interviews; that is why other source-integration types—such as summarizing—have not been included, as they had not been identified and commented on by the students as a separate type of source integration. In fact, the data analysis revealed that these participants did not differentiate between paraphrasing and summarizing, as the examples in the following pages will illuminate. Table 5.4 presents the total number of each type of source integration in the drafts of the four participants.   107  Table 5.4 Types of Source Integration in Master’s Participants’ First Drafts Student Name Number of In-Text Citations Number of Paraphrases Number of ADQs Number of IDQs Total Alice 12 10 2 4 16 Sally 66 49 17 2 68 Wendy 19 11 8 4 23 Elena 10 6 4 0 10 Total Avg.: 26.8 76 31 10 117 Note. The number of in-text citations excludes IDQs by definition.  In total, paraphrasing was used more than twice as much as ADQs (i.e., 76 vs. 31 instances, respectively) and about seven times more often than IDQs (i.e., 76 vs. 10 instances, respectively). As the above table shows, Elena had the least paraphrases (n = 6) and the least in-text citations in her draft (n = 10). On the other hand, Sally had the highest number of paraphrases (n = 49), as well as the highest number of in-text citations (n = 66). It should be noted that, while the total number of paraphrases, ADQs, and IDQs in Sally’s paper equaled 68 (as shown in Table 5.4), the total number of in-text citations reduced to 66 because Sally identified two examples of using a direct quote in her paper without appropriate in-text citation. Overall, these specifications follow the same pattern as the preparation stage, where Elena and Sally stood out at the two extremes. Further analyses revealed that, for each of the three types of source integration (i.e., paraphrasing, use of ADQ, and use of IDQ), the four participants identified certain reasons as tabulated below.   108  Table 5.5 Master’s Students’ Purposes for Using the Three Types of Source Integration Source Integration Type Reason Participant(s) Who Made the Relevant Comments Paraphrasing a. To condense source information b. To simplify difficult concepts c. To display knowledge of the research topic a. Alice, Wendy, Elena b. Alice, Sally c. Elena, Sally ADQ a. To show strong statements b. To present keywords or formal definitions c. To show evidence of close consultation with sources d. To avoid misinterpreting source information a. Alice, Wendy b. Alice, Elena  c. Alice, Sally  d. Wendy, Sally IDQ a. Because it was common knowledge b. Because there were so many things to take care of in the text that the citation was missed a. Wendy  b. Alice, Sally  In the following section, I will explain the reasons for each use of the three source-integration types and provide examples from the students’ texts. Of course, it is important to remember that not all of the participants identified all of these reasons, but those they identified were the ones they deemed as the most significant reasons for using paraphrasing, ADQs, and/or IDQs. Alice’s Source Integration Alice appeared to have no doubt when considering paraphrasing a way of summarizing an original text and condensing the source information. During our conversation, she did not distinguish between these two techniques of source-based   109 writing—that is, paraphrasing and summarizing. She considered herself to be successful in paraphrasing if she could condense the information provided in the sources and convey the source message using fewer words. For instance, according to Alice, the following sentence was a case of paraphrasing: “Smith argues that when [sic] adult educators analyze workplace adult education from academic and research perspectives, scholars in human resource development view workplace education in a practical and business way (2013).” When I invited her to show me the corresponding source text, Alice said, “It is not from only one paragraph in Smith’s paper but the summary of the paper. It is a general conclusion of what Smith says.” Although the excerpt from Alice’s text was a summary of Smith’s paper, and the keywords seem not to be taken from one single section of the source text, Alice viewed it as an example of paraphrasing. Similar findings have been discussed in other studies (e.g., Shi et al., 2018; Wette, 2010). As for the use of ADQs, Alice identified two examples. For her, using these two ADQs was a way of highlighting strong statements and presenting keywords or formal definitions from sources. The following is one example of presenting keywords: Alice’s text: Workplace adult education, long a major thrust [sic] of the field, can be found [sic] explicitly as “occupational”, “vocational”, and “career development”. This focus of adult education is exemplified in job-preparation and skills-development courses, in on-the-job and workplace training, and in management training (Merriam & Brockett, 2007).  Alice’s comment: These words you need to know, and I don’t want to change them. People use them like this because they are keywords when they talk about these topics.  According to Alice, these terms were closely connected to her topic and often used in the field of adult education as key concepts; therefore, she preferred to use these exact words in her text instead of paraphrasing them. It should be noted that direct quotes such as those   110 used by Alice have been classified by scholars in the field (e.g., Petrić, 2012) as “embedded quotes” within paraphrases. This feature of writing has been associated with more experienced academic writers. Alice’s use of embedded quotes could be interpreted as an attempt to gain capital—that is, using the exact words of the original authors she cited to join their dialogue. Moreover, it should be noted that, when explaining her use of IDQs (n = 4), Alice simply said that she needed to focus on so many details when writing her paper that she failed to cite these quotes properly. Such an honest account of one’s inappropriate source use through self-identification has rarely been reported in previous research. It could be viewed as a sign of established trust between the participant and the researcher, as an insider, making access to this level of information possible. As a final note, I should clarify that, although Alice (and the rest of the participants) did not go into detail about their IDQ use, which resulted in a thin description of their practices in this respect, I found it essential and important to report them (even if briefly) to shed some light on inappropriate textual-borrowing practices of novice learners in this study. Wendy’s Source Integration Like Alice, Wendy was of the opinion that paraphrasing is for condensing source information, although she was not as confident in saying this as Alice was. Therefore, she was hesitant in identifying a particular example of “paraphrasing for the purpose of summarizing” in her draft. As for her use of ADQs, Wendy mentioned that her primary reason for using them was to present strong statements from sources. Here is an example from the introduction to Wendy’s paper, where, according to her, she used an ADQ to   111 present a strongly-worded statement (which was, in fact, an embedded quote [Petrić, 2012] in her paraphrased sentence): Wendy’s text: The performance was sometimes “accompanied with biting social commentary” (Saldaña, 2011, p.54), [sic] communicated a clear intention and called for action from the audience.  Source text: The U.S. Federal Theater Project’s “Living Newspaper” program from the 1930s staged dramatizations of current news events for audiences—sometimes accompanied with biting social commentary [emphasis added] to supplement the factual reportage. (Saldaña, 2011, p.54)  Wendy’s comment: It is a strong word, and I cannot find a word better than “biting”. This is very true!  Intriguingly, although Wendy borrowed a chunk longer than one word, her purpose was to highlight the strength of the single word “biting,” as she explained in her comment. The difficulty of integrating that one word into her own text led to her use of a longer chunk from the source text. Another reason for Wendy to use ADQs, as she mentioned, was to avoid misinterpreting source information. As a case in point, Wendy explicated that it was important to her to integrate sources appropriately and accurately to avoid plagiarism, and it was challenging to do so by paraphrasing. Therefore, to avoid misinterpreting source information and risking inaccuracies in paraphrasing, she decided to use an ADQ in the following example: Wendy’s text: According to Hallie Flanagan, the national director of FTP, the Living Newspaper “seeks to dramatize a new struggle—the search of the average American today for knowledge about his country and his world; to dramatize his struggle to turn the great natural and economic forces of our time toward a better life for more people” (Cosgrove, 1982, p. 238).  Wendy’s comment: Paraphrasing is hard for second-language speakers who are not familiar with the field because it has academic words in it. If I use a wrong word, the meaning changes.    112 As Wendy commented, paraphrasing was a challenge for her since she was concerned about using correct synonyms in place of the exact words in the source text. She mentioned two factors negatively impacted her practice—being an L2 writer and being new to the area of research she was writing about in her term paper. These findings are in line with other studies highlighting the role of language (e.g., Bloch, 2001; Keck, 2006) and disciplinary (e.g., Flowerdew & Li, 2007) backgrounds in students’ source-use practices.  Moreover, like Alice, Wendy identified four cases of using IDQs in her first draft. However, she had a different explanation for using them. According to Wendy, these exact words were familiar to her due to the high frequency of their occurrence in class discussions and in readings she had familiarized herself with. In the following example, she used the underlined words below, pulled from other sources, but did not cite them in her draft as she considered them to be common knowledge in her area of study. Wendy’s text: I will evaluate this piece from the following factors: substantive contribution, reflexivity, expression of reality, aesthetic merit, impact, cohesion and gifting [emphasis added].  Source texts: Several readings, including an article by Richardson (2000), plus class discussions  Wendy’s comment: I read a lot about these, and we talked a lot about them in class, so I think I don’t need to use quotation marks.  The terms “reflexivity,” “expression of reality,” “aesthetic merit,” “impact,” “cohesion,” and “gifting,” which can be considered field-specific words in Wendy’s draft, were not cited because she thought she had read a lot about them, and they looked familiar to her. Wendy’s choice not to cite the field-specific words could be an indication of her perceived accumulation of capital, such that she felt she had been a part of the dialogue long enough (as   113 had the more expert members in her CoP) that she no longer needed to behave like someone on the periphery. Sally’s Source Integration When discussing source-integration purposes, Sally emphasized the fact that many scholarly papers were written in a dense and complicated style, and there were so many specific words and phrases that were hard for a novice learner to understand. Therefore, Sally was of the opinion that another significant reason to paraphrase information from a source text—in addition to demonstrating her understanding of the topic—was to simplify concepts for her readers. She was perceiving the writing situation like someone in the center, reaching out to help those on the periphery. She seemed to rely on her perceived capital as she adopted a role in the conversation as a more experienced participant, who was creating a more simplified text for the benefit of those on the community’s periphery. Sally accomplished this simplification of source information by replacing technical words with more general ones. Here is an example from Sally’s draft: Sally’s text: Starr (2011) discovers that usage of it can reflect one’s age to some extent.  Source text: “It has become a marker of adolescent identity” (Starr, 2011, p. 197).  Sally’s comment: Yeah, because you see here she reports the whole analysis of corporates . . . it reflects a lot of things, and it is altogether, and it is not so clear to my readers . . . So, I want to divide these complicated ideas into easy chunks and words.  According to Sally, “marker of adolescent identity” is a complicated concept that needs to be unpacked through paraphrasing to show the connection between “adolescence” and “age.” In this area of research that Sally is writing her paper on, paying attention to attitude markers is deemed crucial for the understanding of contextual features. Therefore, Sally is trying to   114 simplify the element of “adolescent identity” to the “age” factor through the use of attitude markers, as she explained. As for the use of ADQs, Sally’s main reason for making use of them was to provide evidence of her close consultation with sources. This motive reveals the efforts of this novice writer to prove to her reader (i.e., her course instructor) her loyalty to the original source and her careful consultation of it as a legitimate holder of capital in her CoP. Sally’s close source-consultation could also be interpreted as insecurity in making a claim based on her own understanding of the field—that is, contributing her own thoughts to the dialogue with the original authors—as evident in this example from Sally’s draft, along with her comment about it: Sally’s text: Starr (2011) discovers that usage of . . . can reflect one’s age to some extent. Based on her analysis . . . which has [sic] found to be used mostly by teenagers, she concludes that “it has become a marker of adolescent identity” (p. 197).   Sally’s comment: I feel like I am a lawyer . . . I am collecting evidence to show I’ve read the sources carefully, and it is what they say.  Among the four participants, Sally wrote the draft with the highest number of ADQs, with 17 ADQs in her 1,623-word draft. During the interview, she specified that she purposefully used direct quotes to show her course instructor she had consulted the source text and selected important chunks from it (similar to the participants in Harwood & Petrić, 2012). Also, according to Sally, quotes from the source conveyed meaning more accurately than her paraphrases (as also opined by Wendy earlier). Due to this presupposition, in her first draft, Sally relied on the use of 17 direct quotes. Following is a case where two direct quotes (from the same source) were used in a single sentence in Sally’s first draft:  Since these features play such an integral part in the language, Chappell appeals to learners who want to “become proficient speaker[s]” to understand the “emotive and  115 attitudinal nuances of each particle” (p. 41). Overdependence on the original text—due to Sally’s developing authorial identity (Ouellette, 2008)—had caused Sally to use too many direct quotes in her first draft (despite the fact that she thought she was using fewer quotes in this draft compared to her previous papers), resulting in a fading away of her voice from the dialogue among the authors she cited. Since she was not confident about the accuracy of her paraphrased text, she relied on direct quotes to make sure the correct meaning was conveyed and to assure the reader (here, the course instructor) that it was not her message but the original, accredited author’s message that she was passing on to her audience. Students’ expressions of challenges with their paraphrasing accuracy have been reflected in earlier research on L2 writers (e.g., Sun, 2009).  It should also be mentioned that Sally identified two examples of using IDQs instead of ADQs, not because she thought of them as common knowledge but because she was overwhelmed with taking care of other aspects of her paper—that is, Sally appeared to be so concerned with collecting relevant (other) capital that she missed appropriately citing her sources, as also happened in Alice’s case. Elena’s Source Integration During the interview, Elena explained that paraphrasing assisted her in presenting the extent of her understanding of the topic and her knowledge of the field to the reader of her text (i.e., her instructor Elizabeth here), effectively positioning her closer toward the centre of the community, as one qualified to collect even more capital. What follows is an example of paraphrasing in Elena’s draft: Elena’s text: Willingham (2008) argues that critical thinking is largely domain-specific and does not easily transfer from one situation to another. In layperson’s terms, this means that we can think critically about those areas in which we have plenty of experience and knowledge, but not in those we know nothing about—a  116 realization that casts doubt on the belief that critical thinking can be taught as a general skill, or tested as a general skill. Source text: The whole journal article by Willingham (2008) Elena’s comment: This source was actually a theory that this person has developed about critical thinking. He explains it in an article [I read before] and he explains it in a podcast in a conference . . . so I would need to cite, but I wouldn’t need to cite any special words. Displaying her knowledge of the topic of her paper through paraphrasing provided an opportunity for Elena to establish her authorial identity in her dialogue with the other cited authors (like previous participants in Gu & Brooks, 2008; Shi, 2010; Thompson, 2005). Her display of knowledge also enhanced her opportunity to join the core activities of her CoP and, as a result, obtain access to acceptable forms of capital. This purpose is also aligned with findings in other studies on novice writers’ use of citations (e.g., Harwood & Petrić, 2012; Mansourizadeh & Ahmad, 2011). It should be noted that, although Elena identified this example to show how paraphrasing helped her present her knowledge of the topic, it also revealed another instance of interpreting summarizing as paraphrasing and illustrated how she understood summarizing as paraphrasing. Here, Elena drew on the whole source to write her own text yet identified it as a paraphrasing example.  Moreover, in terms of her ADQ usage, Elena cited a reason similar to Alice’s—to present keywords and formal definitions from a source text to showcase her understanding of common vocabulary in the field and prove her established membership in her CoP and her entitlement to further capital. Below is an example of an ADQ used for that reason. In this example, the exact words Elena selected from the source text helped her to define a central term in her paper—that is, topical knowledge. Elena’s text: Bachman and Palmer (2010) identify topical knowledge as one of the factors that affect performance on language tasks. They define it as “content  117 knowledge, knowledge schemata, or real world knowledge . . . in long-term memory” (p. 41). Source text: What we will call topical knowledge (sometimes referred to as content knowledge, knowledge schemata, or real world knowledge [emphasis added]) . . . in long-term memory [emphasis added] (Bachman and Palmer, 2010, p. 41). Elena’s comment: I feel that it is important when you call them [the keywords] to use the language that they [the original authors] had used to define them. It is noteworthy that, while Elena thought of her source integration as effective and similar to an expert’s, in her written arguments, she merely focused on discussions supporting her own points of view and dismissed alternate perspectives presented in the dialogues in the existing literature.  This led her instructor to penalize her for her lack of critical viewpoints. This point will be further discussed in Chapter 7. 5.3.3 Summary The second set of text-based interviews led to the emergence of further individual differences and similarities with respect to participants’ source-selection and source-integration practices and the support available to them in their term-paper writing process. While Alice received rounds of comments from Janice (her course instructor) and an expert member in her CoP, Sally both relied on the help of her peer and continued to be too dependent on the use of sources, leading to a draft with the citation density of 40.6 citations per 1,000 words. Data analyses highlighted an array of motivations for drawing on sources in attempts to join conversations and gain more capital—showing the significance of one’s arguments (in Alice’s case), gaining support for one’s claims (in Wendy’s case), presenting the extent of one’s reading (in Sally’s case), and relying on one’s own intuition (in Elena’s case).   118 The findings of the second text-based interview revealed that the perceptions and practices of the L1 participant, Elena, were divergent from her L2 peers in a couple of ways. While Alice, Sally, and Wendy raised and discussed a common challenge in striking a balance between the use of direct quotes and paraphrasing in efforts to collect relevant capital, Elena did not seem to have an issue with that balance as she already considered herself to be an expert member of her CoP. It was also thought-provoking the way these four students described their motivations for citing sources. While Alice, Sally, and Wendy’s responses were descriptive and categorical, Elena’s comments did not fit in any categories and had a more intuitive nature, without any definite classification or rationale. Alice, Sally, and Wendy’s motivations revealed their conscious attempts—and, at times, struggles—to learn the appropriate practices of the expert members in their academic community and join their conversations through their texts. These findings may be associated with the ways the L2 participants in this study learned the English language—through explicit instruction in EFL and ESL contexts—as compared to L1 situations, where there is a natural, and oftentimes unconscious, exposure to English-language use. Regarding the use of the three types of source integration—that is, paraphrasing, ADQs, and IDQs—while condensing source information was a common purpose with Alice, Wendy, and Elena, Sally mentioned that one of her main reasons for paraphrasing was to simplify source information. With regard to ADQs, shared reasons emerged: Alice and Elena used ADQs to present keywords and formal definitions, Alice and Wendy used them to showcase strong statements, and Wendy and Sally made use of them to avoid misinterpreting source texts. Intriguingly, with the use of IDQs, while Alice and Sally assigned their use to a heavy task load, Wendy simply justified it, saying common knowledge did not need to be  119 cited. Unlike the other three participants, Elena did not identify any examples of IDQs in her draft. Therefore, it could be concluded that there exists a distinction in this regard, between what she and the other participants believed to be common knowledge in their fields or what constituted a heavy work load. Such a distinction could be associated with her longer exposure to appropriate practices in her CoP and her collection of more relevant capital. All of these responses and purposes revealed similarities and disparities in the source-use practices of these four Master’s students at the time of their paper-drafting. Such commonalities and differences underscore the existing convergences, as well as divergences, in terms of source-use practices, which result in varying amounts of source engagement and varying degrees of participation in textual dialogues with original authors—a point to consider before drawing binary dividing lines between students, based only on their language backgrounds. 5.4 Modifications in the Final Draft Following the process-oriented design of this study, I arranged a third interview with the participants at the end of the academic term to discuss their final drafts (i.e., the drafts they would submit as their final papers to their course instructors). This text-based interview illustrated how participants’ source-based writing practices had evolved and how they modified their papers in the time between the first draft and the completion of their submission. Table 5.6 presents a summary of the specifications of their final papers, including the number of references in their reference lists, their in-text citation totals, word counts, and citation densities (which show their source dependency).  120 Table 5.6 Specifications of Master’s Students’ Final Drafts (Third Interview) Student Name Number of References in Reference List Number of In-Text Citations Number of Words in Final Draft In-Text Citation Density (per 1,000 words) Alice 10 33 4,554 7.2 Sally 21 37 2,373 15.5 Wendy 13 24 2,731 8.7 Elena 12 13 4,353 2.9 Average 14 26.8 3,502.8 7.6 As Table 5.6 presents, the final drafts of these four Master’s students ranged from 2,373 to 4,554 words in length. Compared with their earlier drafts (see Table 5.3), Sally’s draft still had the shortest length. The longest paper belonged to Alice and was 201 words more than Elena’s, the second longest paper. With regard to in-text citations, Sally’s paper had the most in-text citations (n = 37) among the four. The lowest number of citations was found in Elena’s text, which had a total of 13. Comparing the density of in-text citations in these drafts with earlier drafts, it is evident that, except for the significant decrease in in-text citations in Sally’s paper (i.e., from 40.6 to 15.5 citations per 1,000 words), there were no significant changes in the citation densities in the students’ papers. (See Table 5.7.) Students also made modifications in their use of the three types of source integration. Table 5.7 juxtaposes the total number of each type of source integration from the first draft and the final draft of each student, as identified and discussed by Alice, Elena, Sally, and Wendy during the third text-based interviews. It also compares the word counts and citation densities in each of the two drafts.   121 Table 5.7 Specifications of Master’s Students’ Term Papers Across Two Drafts Student Name Paraphrase ADQ IDQ Word Count In-Text Citation Density (per 1,000 words)  D1 D2 D1 D2 D1 D2 D1 D2 D1 D2 Alice 10 14 2 19 4 3 1,959 4,554 6.1 7.2 Sally 49 31 17 6 2 2 1,623 2,373 40.6 15.5 Wendy 11 15 8 9 4 3 1,966 2,731 9.6 8.7 Elena 6 7 4 6 0 1 2,839 4,353 3.5 2.9 Average 19 16.8 7.8 10 2.5 2.3 2,096.8 3,502.8 12.7 7.6 Note. D1 = Draft 1; D2 = Draft 2  Obviously, there was a sharp increase in the use of ADQs (i.e., from 2 to 19) in Alice’s drafts, while the number of ADQs significantly decreased in Sally’s final paper (i.e., from 17 to 6). Another notable modification was the decrease in paraphrases in Sally’s final draft (i.e., from 49 to 31). Analyses of data collected in the third interview—to understand how and why these students made changes in their use of sources—led to the emergence of two major themes pertaining to the modifications in the students’ final drafts. These two themes reflect (a) modifications in the use of in-text citations and (b) modifications in the use of types of source integration as discussed by each participant. I will present below the findings for each participant with regard to the two themes. 5.4.1 Source-Use Modifications in Alice’s Final Draft Alice’s final paper concluded with a total of 4,554 words. She drew on 10 sources and referred to them 33 times in her text. Out of these 33 in-text citations, Alice identified 14   122 paraphrases and 19 ADQs. The citation density in her final draft was 7.2 citations per 1,000 words, which was slightly denser than her first draft (i.e., 6.1 citations per 1,000 words). While, in her first draft, Alice was quite motivated to highlight the importance of her argument by bringing in sources discussing ideas similar to hers, in her final draft, she mentioned a more targeted purpose when adding sources. After reviewing her first draft, she found that most of her arguments and the sources she had selected supported only one aspect of her paper (i.e., adult education); therefore, to offer a balanced representation of both key terms in her arguments (i.e., adult education and human resources development), Alice decided to include more sources discussing human resources in her final draft. The following is an example: Alice’s text: According to these 15 articles collected from Human Resource Development Quarterly, the research find [sic] the following features (in HRD): HRD privileges organizational interests; learners, described in HRD, follow the organizational agenda for training; and the orientation of HRD tends to be more hierarchal [sic] and practical.  Alice’s comment: [In my first draft], I wrote a lot about adult education, but, in human resource, I only gave, like, one or two sentences, and it was not equal, so I added more sources from human resources.  The above example included two new references. They show that Alice tried to present a balanced argument by including sources from adult education, as well as from human resources, the two key areas of her final paper. Doing so positioned Alice as a more of an expert member to her audience. Another significant modification in the source integration of Alice’s final paper was regarding the use of ADQs. While Alice used only two ADQs in her first draft, she included 19 ADQs in the final draft. In fact, she decided to replace her initial paraphrase with an ADQ in the final draft. The following example presents one of her ADQ cases:    123 Alice’s paraphrase in the first draft: . . . grounded in an economic theory, human capital theory, where the needs of the organization/company are primary and the employee’s needs are met within the needs of the employer.  Alice’s ADQ in the final draft: According to the authors, the essence of human capital theory is that “. . . organizations invest in training according to their own self-interest-improved productivity.”  Alice’s comment: I was not really sure about my paraphrase, so I thought it is good to put the direct quote here. I think I prefer to represent the author’s idea without any bias or something.  Hesitancy and lack of confidence about the accuracy of her initial paraphrase and the consideration of her ideas as being biased and, therefore, not reliable enough to be included in this paper made Alice rely on the use of ADQs more frequently. According to Alice, she spent a very long time preparing the literature review section of her final draft because she was trying to identify the main ideas in the original sources and add them to her paper without arguing her own position—presumably, to avoid entering the dialogue among the authors. Compared to paraphrases, direct quotes foregrounded the voice of the original author and, therefore, might have limited Alice’s authorial identity (Ouellette, 2008) to the extent that she resorted to the use of ADQs to make sure her source-based writing seemed appropriate to her audience (i.e., the course instructor). 5.4.2 Source-Use Modifications in Sally’s Final Draft Sally’s final paper, with a total of 37 in-text citations and 2,373 words, had the highest number of in-text citations among the four participants’ final papers. Although it contained 29 citations fewer than her previous draft, it still amounted to being the densest paper among them all, with 15.5 citations per 1,000 words. When discussing modifications she made in her final draft, Sally mentioned that, while she deleted some of the citations she had in her first draft, she included other sources from well-known scholars in the field—an   124 idea that came from her further readings over the course, as well as from consulting her instructor. Here is Sally’s explanation about an example of such an addition in her final draft: Sally’s text: In addition, few Mandarin textbooks have incorporated sufficient examples and illustrations of ASPs (Diao, 2013) . . . One typical example can be found in Diao’s (2013) study, in which the host mother constantly uses distinctive ASPs of Shanghainese such as Va and Va La [emphasis in the original] in her casual conversations to [sic] a study abroad American student.  Sally’s comment: I asked my instructor, and she gave me the name of key scholars, like Diao, in this area . . . also, I realized some of the people are the key scholars because everybody cites them so maybe they have the authority.  As in the above example, Sally referred to Diao’s work seven times throughout her paper. Although the total number of in-text citations in Sally’s final draft dropped relative to her first draft, she replaced several of the citations from her first draft with well-known and highly quoted sources, as she explained above, likely to show her mastery of the topic to her course instructor, an expert member in that area. While adding some sources, Sally explained that she deleted some other citations in her final draft to avoid over-citing, a phenomenon seen in inexpert writing from sources (Hyland, 2000; Petrić, 2012). Apparently, the peer and teacher support she had received in her CoP during her term-paper writing had been effective in guiding her toward a reduced dependency on sources. She said, At the beginning, I thought it is good to show that I read so many sources, but, later, my peers and course instructor taught me that I don’t have to have too many sources, so I deleted some of them.  Moving from 66 in-text citations in the first draft to 37 in the final draft is proof of such a change in Sally’s source-use practices. As for modifications in the type of source integration, at some places in the final paper, Sally replaced what were initially ADQs with her own paraphrases. She mentioned one main purpose for doing so—to present her understanding of the source text—perceptibly   125 as a means of demonstrating her skill with a practice considered amongst experts as affording more capital to CoP members. This, indeed, illuminated this student writer’s growing command of writing skills, here, in particular, of paraphrasing skills. This decision of Sally’s to paraphrase was quite similar to Elena’s purpose for paraphrasing in her first draft. Here is an example comparing Sally’s first and final drafts with respect to replacing an ADQ with a paraphrase: Sally’s ADQ in the first draft: For example, Lee-Wong (1998) suggests that the combination of [these features] and other vocabulary can index social class between two speakers. One of her interviewee [sic] regarded “social class—status and ranking, to be an influencing factor” [emphasis added] for his linguistic choice (p. 399).  Sally’s paraphrase in the final draft: An example of indexing social class can be found in Lee-Wong’s (1998) study, in which an interviewee considered social class as the deterministic factor [emphasis added] impacting his choice.   Sally’s comment: I explained . . . to make it clear to the reader what the author means.  In the above example, although Sally did not make a significant modification in the structure of the paraphrased sentence, she deleted “status and ranking” from the original quote, and replaced “influencing” with “deterministic.” She considered this paraphrasing attempt as a way she could add more of her own understanding and connect it to her previous sentence. Making minimal revisions by using synonyms in paraphrasing has been found in previous research as a novice strategy for participating in the appropriate activities of one’s CoP (e.g., Keck, 2006). 5.4.3 Source-Use Modifications in Wendy’s Final Draft Wendy’s final paper contained 2,731 words in total, 13 sources in her reference list, and 24 in-text citations. The citation density in Wendy’s final draft was 8.7 in-text citations per 1,000 words—that is, 0.9 citations fewer than in her first draft, with a density of 9.6   126 citations per 1,000 words. During the third interview, Wendy was still concerned about the reliability of her claims; therefore, obtaining support from sources was the main purpose for adding new citations, a reason that echoed what she had mentioned in the second interview. She explained, “In my first draft, I didn’t have enough sources, so I added [some] to make my paper valid and reliable . . . I don’t want my paper to be subjective and only about my personal ideas and experiences.” As a novice writer, Wendy was still not quite confident in writing from her own point of view (as discussed in Petrić, 2012, among others) in the textual dialogue she created among original authors. Drawing in more sources into her work was a way for her to feel the support of scholars (i.e., expert members) as she made claims in her draft, she clarified. With regard to Wendy’s modifications in the types of source integration she used, Wendy explained that she had replaced ADQs with paraphrases in two places in her final paper in order to show her knowledge and understanding of the keywords related to her final paper’s topic, a sign of increasing capital in Wendy. According to Wendy, she gained this knowledge over the term from further reading in the area and through class discussions. Here is an example comparing Wendy’s first and final drafts, along with her accompanying comment: Wendy’s ADQ in the first draft: According to Stuart Cosgrove (1989), the Living Newspaper performances “statistically illustrated the dramatic rendering of a factual news item [emphasis added]”(p. ix).   Wendy’s paraphrase in the final draft: The Living Newspaper productions did share a large number of common characteristics with modern ethnodrama (Cosgrove, 1989).   Wendy’s comment: First, I thought it is very important to quote this idea from the author but later found that it is a very basic idea, and I can explain it.    127 Although Wendy’s paraphrase does not seem to be a close representation of the original text’s message, it offered a window for Wendy to demonstrate her textual capital by showcasing her knowledge of modern ethnodrama as a key concept in her field. Wendy also replaced the examples of IDQ she had identified in her first draft with ADQs. In this example, Wendy had not initially used double quotation marks nor included the page number for the quote she had taken from the source. Wendy’s IDQ in the first draft: Richardson (2000) asks three questions in terms of substantive contribution: Does this piece contribute to our understanding of social-life? Does the writer demonstrate a deeply grounded (if embedded) human-world understanding and perspective? How has this perspective informed the construction of text?  Wendy’s ADQ in the final draft: Richardson (2000) asks three questions under the broad category of substantive contribution: “Does this piece contribute to our understanding of social-life? Does the writer demonstrate a deeply grounded (if embedded) human-world understanding and perspective? How has this perspective informed the construction of text?” (p. 254)  Wendy’s comment: I used these and, because I first thought they are general [questions], I didn’t cite [quote] them, but then I changed my mind and cited [quoted] them.  In her first draft, Wendy considered these questions taken from Richardson’s (2000) paper as common questions and, therefore, did not quote them properly; later, however, she changed her mind. Overall, in this draft, Wendy showed greater command of paraphrasing, as well as using ADQs over IDQs, probably due to her further experience with source use that provided her with more relevant capital. 5.4.4 Source-Use Modifications in Elena’s Final Draft In her 4,353-word-long final draft, Elena drew on 12 sources and cited them 13 times in her text. The citation density of her final paper was slightly lower than that of her first draft (i.e., from 3.5 to 2.9 citations per 1,000 words)—which was still the lowest among all   128 four final papers. Elena’s paper also contained the least number of paraphrases (n = 7), ADQs (n = 6), and IDQs (n = 1). When I inquired about her use of references in her final paper, she mentioned something intriguing, saying that, since she had previously done some reading and research in this area (i.e., cultural knowledge), she considered it acceptable to write on this concept from her point of view without citing many outside sources. It seemed she was taking ownership of the knowledge based on her study and experiences (Shi, 2011), joining dialogues among expert members in that area by drawing on her collected capital. In her words, “I kind of read all these studies before, but I didn’t summarize them here. From the beginning, I had this idea that A affects B, and my experience with students supports my idea, so I just wrote about it.” Based on my discussion with Elena and a comparison of her first with her final draft, it seems that she did not make any significant modifications in her approach to source use. It appeared she was confident and satisfied with the way she created the dialogue in her text, and her already-accumulated capital sufficed for her paper. She kept her earlier ideas about the role of cultural knowledge in students’ exam performance (i.e., the topic of her paper) and merely included the studies that highlighted that impact (a point that will later be problematized by her instructor, as will be discussed in Chapter 7). She minimally added to the number of her in-text citations, as well as the types of source integration, as presented in Table 5.7. 5.4.5 Summary Compared with the while-writing drafts, analyses of students’ final drafts revealed modifications in their use of citations and the three types of source integration. Based on the observation, in students’ drafts, of modifications involving switches from paraphrasing to   129 ADQs and vice versa, the present study illustrates how L2 participants’ source-based writing skills developed within a transitional stage in their CoPs. Their practices of collecting and displaying appropriate forms of capital fluctuated between, on one end, holding on to the use of ADQs to ensure the accurate and precise presentation of original ideas (in the case of Alice) and, on the other end, using paraphrases to showcase their knowledge and mastery of the research topic (in the cases of Sally and Wendy) so that they could join the textual dialogue with the other authors. This back and forth highlights their growing sense of authorship and ownership of a text. In terms of replacing IDQs with ADQs, Alice, Sally, and Wendy reported that they changed their minds about what constituted common knowledge because they found that those concepts were not, in fact, common knowledge, based on their continuous reading and learning of the content—which acted as a source for new forms of capital. The most relevant reason to explain these changes could be an increased awareness of and sensitivity to appropriate source-use boundaries due to their continued exposure to academic texts and their familiarity with the academic source-based writing expectations of their CoPs, including those they learned about as a result of their involvements in this study and related conversations on source use. As a case in point, Alice and Wendy clearly identified the role their participation in this study played in their elevated level of awareness and sensitivity toward appropriately cited source-based academic writing. Such a revelation underscores the significance of pedagogy and the effectiveness of explicit reflection and one-on-one conversations in the understanding of this occluded and indeterminate aspect of academic discourse socialization. A greater understanding of source use can lead to further engagements by students with source texts, which can further form their authorial identities   130 through the collection of more textual capital, emboldening them to join dialogues with more source authors. The third text-based interview offered significant information regarding the types of modifications students made in their source-use practices as they were preparing drafts to be submitted to their instructors. Analyzing the purposes and explanations for the changes made illuminated variant and, in some cases, contrasting ways the students looked at their source-based writing practices. While Sally and Wendy appeared to have developed confidence (in varying degrees) in presenting and discussing sources from their own points of view (similar to what was found in the second interview with Elena), Alice still seemed hesitant about presenting her voice among those of source authors; she did not seem to be able to confidently rely on the capital she had obtained in her coursework with the help of her expert CoP member. 5.5 Conclusion  Investigating students’ perceptions of source use, along with practices and modifications that occurred in the process of source-use writing, provided a better understanding of these four Master’s students’ source-based writing. In their attempts to move from the margins of their academic communities to the cores, these participants strived to socialize themselves into the writing standards of their “target disciplinary communities” (Li, 2007) by collecting appropriate forms of capital. In this learning process, the support from their relevant communities and networks of practice (i.e., instructors and more experienced peers) was perceived as the cornerstone of their academic writing success, of which appropriate source-based writing was a significant component.    131 As reported in this chapter, there seemed to be some divergence in the perceptions and practices of the three international Master’s students and their local counterpart in this study. However, such a divergence appeared to have originated from distinct academic experiences (e.g., varying degrees of familiarity with the topical content and training in and knowledge of appropriate source use) rather than from their linguistic backgrounds. Despite the fact that, in their responses, Sally and Wendy repeatedly positioned themselves as L2 writers and considered their language-learning status as a hindrance to their academic success, the three L2 participants were very conscious about their source-use practices and were able to reflect on their drafts, providing details of their citation decisions and modifications—a feature that was missing in the conversations with the local student, Elena, who considered all of these practices as naturally occurring and who had no specific purpose in mind when using sources.  One major trend in the Master’s students’ comments regarding their experiences with the source texts involved the significance of their academic CoPs both in shaping their perceptions about source integration and in forming and reforming their authorial identities (Bakhtin, Emerson, & Holquist, 1986; Oullette, 2008) through engagement with source-based writing practices. As presented in the analyses in this chapter, the central role of the course instructor in Alice’s case and the peer support in Sally’s case facilitated the process of research writing for these novice writers and paved their way to access valued capital and join in the core activities of their CoPs. Moreover, as these Master’s participants discussed in the interviews, partaking in this research project offered further opportunities for them to reflect on their source-use practices and gradually feel more confident in voicing their opinions in their writing with less hesitancy about what constitutes appropriate versus   132 inappropriate textual-borrowing practices. Through investigating these experiences at another academic level (i.e., the doctoral level), the following chapter will offer a vantage point for comparing source-based writing perceptions and practices across two graduate levels.     133 Chapter 6: Source-Based Writing by Doctoral Students: Scholars Emerging in Text 6.1 Overview of Chapter This chapter presents the thematic analyses of twelve text-based interviews with one local and three international doctoral students, all in their first year of their PhD programs in education. To gain an understanding of their source-based writing perceptions and practices, I—as I did with the Master’s students—conducted three text-based interviews with each doctoral student prior to, during, and after the writing of the research paper for the final assignment in one of their graduate-level courses. In addition to understanding their source-based writing perceptions and practices, this process-oriented approach also made it possible to both locate their source-based writing challenges and corresponding coping strategies, and compare their source-based writing practices with those of the Master’s students, wherever applicable. Chapter 6 follows the same organization as Chapter 5; it will centre on the three major steps of planning, writing, and revising, which will correspond with the three semi-structured interviews with the four participating doctoral students, Arman, Essi, Linda, and Jeff. In each section, the analyses of the students’ interviews, as well as their writing, will be organized and presented thematically, viewed through the three lenses of CoP, Forms of Capital, and Dialogism. In the first section (i.e., 6.2), I will focus on the students’ past experiences with source use during their Master’s programs and earlier, their plans for their current term paper, and their expected sources of support whilst integrating source texts into their writing. Moving from the planning stage to the writing stage, in the second section (i.e., 6.3), I will analyze participants’ selection and integration of sources along with their motivations and purposes. Analyses in the third section (i.e., 6.4) will illuminate student purposes and explanations with respect to the modifications they made in the source   134 selection and source integration in their final drafts. In all three sections, I will discuss the commonalities and distinctions in the source-based writing practices of the four first-year doctoral students, as well as between them and the participating Master’s students. 6.2 When Old Capital Meets New: Emergent Scholars’ Writing Plans At the time of the first interview, the four doctoral students were planning for the drafting of their final papers. They drew on their past experiences (i.e., old forms of capital) to describe their perceptions regarding the use of sources in research writing and explained their understanding of terms such as textual borrowing and plagiarism in academic writing. Coming from diverse geographical and educational backgrounds, each of them relied on their carried-over academic capital to describe their views about writing from sources.  Essi, an international student with BA and MA degrees from European universities, had a vague recollection of learning, during his MA, how to do citations and use source texts. According to Essi: It was some kind of warnings and maybe some written documents about avoiding plagiarism, but there wasn’t something they [instructors] emphasized. I don’t think it was ever addressed in class . . . it hasn’t been, like, a big issue . . . it wasn’t discussed much.  Essi said that there was neither training nor course offerings specifically focused on academic writing and source-use-skills improvement in his previous programs (i.e., both BA and MA). He further explained that, during his MA program, he realized—through self-exploration and self-study with books and articles—that he was expected to follow certain rules when taking information from course readings and incorporating it into his writing. For the instructors in his MA program, avoiding source misuse was not a concern to be discussed in class since, as Essi assumed, they expected students to know about the boundaries of appropriate textual borrowing. Apparently, the lack of class conversation and formal   135 instruction on source use did not cause any problems for Essi since Essi found a way of dealing with sources on his own as he needed to by drawing on his self-collected capital. Essi’s experience, in which he received little support with source use, differed from the experience that Linda, another doctoral student, had whilst in school. Linda, originally from East Asia, where she received both her BA and MA degrees in education, recalled from her experience with source use during her Master’s program in her country of origin: I first learned about plagiarism when I was a freshman in one of my English skills classes . . . the teacher emphasized over and over that plagiarism is a bad thing, and he gave us articles about plagiarism to read. That was all.  Unlike Essi’s instructors, Linda’s instructor seemed to be concerned about the issue of plagiarism and source misuse, but the concern appeared more regulatory than educational in nature (as discussed by Thompson, 2005). It seemed her instructor was required to alert students and to highlight the significance of engaging in appropriate textual borrowing but did not have the time or resources to further discuss and deal with the issue. Similar to the Master’s L2 participants (i.e., Alice, Sally, and Wendy), both Essi and Linda had not received any formal instruction on source-based writing in their programs in Europe and in Asia; the attention that had been given to source misuse by their instructors came more in the form of warnings and seemed less pedagogical in nature; therefore, they learned about appropriate versus inappropriate source-based writing through their own readings. Arman, yet another doctoral student—who received his Master’s degree from a North American university—also recounted a similar experience with writing from source texts: The problem is that I never received the formal instruction. I had to learn little by little for myself, even for my Master’s thesis. We had a course on methodology, but, in a single course of methodology, you cannot learn everything like about how to cite sources. During my Master’s, they kind of assumed that I had it from my Bachelor’s   136 degree . . . If I wanted to take information from somewhere, like a book, I needed to go to the book and read the whole book . . . and, if I considered it was something popular that everybody knew about them, there was no need to do that [citing]. I didn’t cite or give credit. Like, I would assume that it was something that I didn’t need to acknowledge. That was what I learned by myself.  In his explanations, Arman clarified how he distinguished between what needed to be cited and what he considered to be common knowledge; therefore, he skipped citing some sources. Paucity of pedagogical support from expert members in their academic communities (course instructors, in particular) is evident in all of these three cases, making it a challenge for these novice academic writers to see the boundaries between appropriate and inappropriate source-based writing practices. They seemed to be unsure about the validity of the capital they were carrying with themselves while they were in pursuit of acceptable and privileged forms of capital in their new academic communities.  Previous research has suggested that L2 writers are in deficit in comparison to their L1 peers when it comes to mastery in drawing sources into their work (e.g., Walker, 2009). However, when I inquired about his previous experience, Jeff, as an L1 writer, also described it as a “sink or swim” situation. Like his L2 peers, Jeff did not receive any training regarding source use in academic writing; instead, his previous teaching experience helped him to navigate through appropriate source-based writing; therefore, he collected what he needed of the valued capital by himself. Here is how he explicated his experience in his undergraduate and Master’s programs: It was never explicitly explained to me in any of my classes. So, it was just like, “Look at this manual, read it, and follow it.” Essentially, I never had an explicit instruction on citation practices. In fact, it wasn’t until my Master’s, when I got a job in a writing centre, that I really had to study it more explicitly. I studied by myself. It was part of the job because part of our job at that writing centre was to explain to students who came in, to help them with citation practices . . . So, I would just say my knowledge of citation was based on my reading of articles, and trying to understand what the authors of those articles were doing, and referring to manuals . . . I was very   137 confused even at the writing centre. These things were very new to me. I didn’t even know there were different styles. It was interesting.  What Jeff found helpful and educational was a position in which he had to work as a tutor in a writing centre during his Master’s program in an eastern Canadian university. In preparation for his job, Jeff had to read articles and APA manuals to learn the citation rules before explaining them to his tutees (i.e., effectively sharing his self-collected capital). He confirmed that most of his learning to write from sources took place during the time he worked in the writing centre. This sink or swim situation left him with no choice other than to explore the rules and ways of writing from sources on his own to be able to meet his tutees’ needs and expectations in the writing centre. A noteworthy point here comes from another fact that came out of Jeff’s description of his experience concerning the type of writing support available in the writing centre. According to Jeff, the type of tutoring available to writing centre attendees was mostly at the language level and about citation styles such as APA. He was neither trained nor expected to offer disciplinary-specific or content-based support or to guide attendees how to interpret and integrate sources into their own writing. Thus, the writing centre left out a significant part of the much-needed support a novice could obtain from an expert member in their relevant disciplinary community. Such a gap in the level of support provided through a writing centre would present its inevitable negative effects in the subsequent writing practices of novice student writers, while imposing hefty expenses on a university budget. Similar findings in earlier studies (e.g., Dinitz & Harrington, 2014; Kiedaisch & Dinitz, 1993; Mackiewicz, 2004) support this observation from Jeff.  The common reality across the experiences of these four doctoral students seems to be the paucity of instructional and institutional support in their previous CoPs—university   138 programs, locally and globally, from Asia to Europe to North America. As a result, the ambiguity regarding the rules governing source-based writing—which comprises a significant part of university students’ academic writing—has imposed a high level of uncertainty and anxiety on students and calls into question the policies for the distribution of institutional resources in these contexts. In their new or current programs, these four students attempt to draw on their limited past experiences with source use while examining and learning new ways of improving their research-paper-writing skills as emerging scholars in search of validated and privileged forms of capital.  All of the four doctoral students—in contrast to the Master’s students, who explained about their knowledge of textual borrowing and source-based writing immediately after my question on this matter—started with comments to differentiate between textual borrowing and plagiarism. This reveals an elevated level of awareness among doctoral students regarding the use of specific terminologies that might be the result of their longer exposure to academic texts and academic discussions. It could also imply the dominance of punitive measures, focusing on warnings in their previous academic institutions, that conditioned these emerging scholars to consider explaining their understanding of plagiarism versus other less-loaded terms, such as textual borrowing—a term I purposefully employed over plagiarism as much as possible during the interviews. 6.2.1 Term-Paper Writing Plans and Support Expected During the first interview, I asked students to share the course outlines they received from their instructors so that I could collect and compare their final-paper requirements. In addition, they responded to my questions regarding their selection of paper topics and the support they expected to receive in/from their academic communities. Table 6.1 presents the   139 final-paper requirements in terms of the type of paper and the length requirement provided to students in the course outlines. It should be noted that, since Essi and Linda were taking the same course, the paper descriptions for them are identical.  Table 6.1 PhD Students’ Final-Paper Requirements Student Name Type of Paper Required Length Arman Review of research on your topic of interest upon the approval of the course instructor 5,000-7,000 words Essi The review of a methodological approach or issue, discussion on key illustrative studies, plus relevant readings from this course and beyond the course  Approximately 15-18 pages, plus references Linda The review of a methodological approach or issue, discussion on key illustrative studies, plus relevant readings from this course and beyond the course  Approximately 15-18 pages, plus references Jeff • Option A: Critical review of interview research • Option B: A substantive literature review on theories of interview, and a well-argued, principled rationale that is grounded in relevant literature for a particular theory or combination of theories • Option C: A short qualitative interview study on a relevant topic in education 10-15 pages, excluding any tables, figures, appendices  With the exception of Jeff (who had three options to choose from – like Wendy in Master’s group), the other three doctoral students had only one option for their final papers. Of course, from the descriptions of the final papers, it is evident that all of the instructors required the students to write research reviews for which source use is deemed to be an integral element. At the time of the first interview, all four participants had prepared forms of   140 outlines7. While Arman’s and Essi’s outlines were constituted of sub-headings, focusing on the themes they planned to cover in their papers, Linda’s and Jeff’s outlines were more extended, containing elaborations and details about the sub-topics. Table 6.2 summarizes the four outlines in terms of their format and length, number of in-text citations, number of outlines drafted, and whether the students expected to get support from other members of their community while writing their drafts. It should be noted that, although Arman and Linda had prepared more than one outline, for the purpose of analytic consistency across the four participants, I reviewed only the last versions of their outlines and interviewed them based on the last versions only.  Table 6.2 Specifications of PhD Students’ Initial Outlines and Expected Support (First Interview) Student Name Outline Format Number of Words Number of Sources Consulted Number of Outlines Expected Sources of Support Arman Thematic outline 232 17 3 Instructor & tutor Essi Thematic outline 226 4 1 None Linda Extended outline 2,240 20 2 None Jeff Extended outline 472 9 1 None                                                   7 While the term “planning draft” was used to describe the planning document provided to me by the Master’s students in this study, the PhD students referred to their version of the same document as an “outline.”  For this reason, I will use the term “outline” to describe the planning document submitted by the doctoral students.   141 Arman clarified that he had initially prepared two visual outlines; then, based on those outlines, he drafted a real outline—“real” because it had the conventional format of an outline. Also, Linda had first written a brief outline and then drafted an extended one, with 2,240 words and 20 in-text citations. As for the support these students expected to receive, an intriguing conversation took place during the first interview with Arman. As a first-year PhD student, Arman had already received support from his supervisor, who was also the instructor of the course he was taking. Over the first few weeks of the course, Arman’s supervisor/instructor e-mailed him several sources related to his research interest. Arman said, “I think she is interested in what I am doing. She e-mailed me and told me to read this and read that . . . she sends me papers [related to my topic].” Arman’s instructor was deemed to be very resourceful and encouraging as a holder of capital, yet Arman did not expect any comments from her on his working draft during his writing due to her busy schedule. Instead, Arman’s instructor provided him with another source of support, a tutor. In fact, from the beginning of the course, his instructor hired a tutor to provide Arman with the support he would need with his research-paper writing. The tutor held a Master’s degree in a field close to Arman’s current field of study and was available upon Arman’s request to address his doubts and answer his questions; therefore, he was capable of acting as a reliable source of desired capital for Arman. It was a unique opportunity for Arman to learn from the tutor how to gain the forms of capital he needed in order to not only survive but thrive in his new community through the appropriate source-based writing practices he used to create textual dialogue in his term paper. The other three participants had disparate expectations with respect to the while-writing support from their CoPs. Linda, Essi, and Jeff did not presume that their respective   142 instructors would closely attend to their writing needs or send them relevant sources over the term, let alone assign a third party to offer on-demand writing support. Linda described her presupposition as follows: “I think I’m on the right track right now . . . [but] if I’m not sure how to find or how to include sources, I think by myself to figure it out.” This self-reliance in Linda’s expression of her expectation of support during her source-based writing could be viewed and analyzed from two angles. From one point of view, it revealed her mastery and knowledge in writing on her topic as a result of adequate collected capital, and, from the second perspective, it could be interpreted as the outcome of the absence of support from junior and senior members in her academic community. As evidence for this claim, on one occasion during my interview with Linda, she mentioned: [M]y classmates are very busy, so I’m kind of always hesitant to ask them to check my outline or even talk about my topic . . . sometimes, we might ask each other what kind of topic we’ve chosen and stuff like that, but we don’t really go into details . . . our instructor is very thoughtful and really reaching out for us in class, but I know she is very busy, too.  Linda’s consideration for her peers’ and teacher’s time resonated with Essi’s comment in this regard. According to Essi, his instructor might not have had the time to invest in giving extra support as Essi attempted to collect more capital through drafting his term paper. As for the peer support, Essi did not count much on his peers’ feedback because, based on his experience, the feedback focused mostly on language, which he did not feel was very helpful. I would say, with the peers, I would definitely say it’s mainly picking out some of those typos, and, basically, that’s it; so, it’s not very important. I mean it’s nice, but it’s not, like, important because it usually doesn’t go beyond that. But with other [instructor’s] feedback, I would say it’s vital, but often I don’t get it. Often, I just write it and send it off and get whatever grade . . . but it [the feedback] is definitely valuable, I think . . . it’s more the question of, partly, how much time the course instructor has and, partly, how, let’s say inviting she is. I mean, the course instructor can explicitly invite or say, “Feel free to send it,” kind of thing—“Send drafts,” kind   143 of thing . . . there are different ways of communicating that, but I usually don’t hear much on that.  Essi appreciated and preferred his instructor’s support as a reliable source of capital, yet did not expect to receive any in his writing process. Quite similarly, Jeff, who was a local doctoral student and had worked locally and internationally as a writing teacher prior to starting his doctoral program, held the same point of view. He explained that he would prefer to figure out his writing issues by himself rather than asking other peers or seeking guidance from the course instructor throughout the term. He thought he could obtain what he needed from reading relevant sources, probably because he viewed readings as accessible sources from which he could collect the textual capital he needed to gain sufficient authority to join dialogues among original authors: I feel that I don’t need to . . . I think I am very comfortable with my writing now . . . when I read, I make connections almost like I am talking to people. It’s almost like the readings are people, and so I can just read more and figure out things because I am trying to situate myself within a collection of people speaking within a field. And so, those are the people who are helping me get through this writing process.    As a doctoral-level academic writer, Jeff’s argument seemed compelling and could be viewed as a sign of authorship in his dialogic writing. However, sympathy goes out to those who are not yet at this advanced stage of writing and are endeavoring to get involved in the core activities of their community by collecting privileged and acceptable forms of textual capital in their writing. These students, as suggested by Thompson (2005), need someone to talk to and ask questions from as they learn to make their voice heard through their writing amidst previous authors.  6.2.2 Summary: Capital to Be Collected The reflections of the doctoral students at the planning stage revealed significant information regarding their past encounters and experiences with source-based writing, their   144 existing capital, and their senses of authorship. The insufficiency of resources for scaffolding students’ progress in their academic writing, in both L1 and L2 contexts, seems to be a widespread problem. The hurdles in the lonely writing journeys each of these four participants needed to undertake in order to learn about the “do”s and “don’t”s of writing from sources could be mitigated with pedagogical and institutional support. These emerging scholars had built some confidence in presenting their knowledge of writing from sources yet still appreciated the guidance of more-experienced members of their community in the demanding writing journeys before them. Paving their own way at this academic level—although expected by their communities—at times imposed a high level of uncertainty and anxiety. According to Jeff, reading sources sufficed in terms of his need to learn and to find his way through final-paper drafting. However, is the path that straightforward for all emerging academic writers in search for valued forms of capital? 6.3 Drafting the Paper: Crafting the Capital  To unveil the in-progress, source-based writing practices of the four informants, I arranged second interviews with Arman, Essi, Linda, and Jeff closer to the final weeks of the term, when they were at the writing stage and were ready to share the working drafts of their final papers. During the second interview sessions with each participant, we discussed their motivations for source selection, their purposes for choosing certain types of source integration, and their challenges and strategies in this process. Table 6.3 presents the specifications of the while-writing drafts, including the total number of words (excluding the reference list); the total number of sources consulted, listed in the reference section; the total number of in-text citations; as well as the citation densities for the four drafts (Hyland, 2000).   145  Table 6.3 Specifications of PhD Students’ While-Writing Drafts (Second Interview) Student Name Reference List Included Number of In-Text Citations Number of Words in While-Writing Draft In-Text Citation Density (per 1,000 words) Arman No 13 936 13.9 Essi No 63 3,320 19.0 Linda No 39 2,240 17.4 Jeff Yes; 8 sources 40 3,479 11.5 Average - 38.8 2,493.8 15.5  At the time of the second text-based interview, none of the students, save Jeff, had included a reference list in their drafts. With regard to length, Jeff had the lengthiest draft, which was 159 words longer than that of Essi, who drafted the second lengthiest paper, with 3,320 words. The shortest draft belonged to Arman—under 1,000 words (n = 936). As for the in-text citations, Essi’s paper was ahead of the others, with a total of 63 citations. Essi’s citations (n = 63) far exceeded Arman’s, Linda’s, and Jeff’s citation totals—13, 39, and 40 citations, respectively. Arman who had prepared the shortest draft of them all, also used the least in-text citations (n = 13). In terms of citation density, Essi had the highest, with a density of 19 citations per 1,000 words (i.e., significantly higher than the average for the field—10.8 citations per 1,000 words, as discussed in Hyland, 2000), and Jeff’s paper had the lowest citation density (i.e., 11.5 citations per 1,000 words), much closer to the average in the field. In the following section, the specifications of each student’s source selection will be discussed, along with the motivations connected to these practices.   146 6.3.1 Why They Picked What They Picked: Source Selection and Motivation  One of the concealed, and hence under-researched, practices taking place in source-based writing is the author’s continuous process of searching for and selecting certain sources over others. Inside and outside of the classroom, students might informally discuss their source-finding attempts and exchange with peers their motivations for selecting some sources over others; however, the process of source selection and the motivations behind it have rarely been tackled and investigated in literature (except in Davis & Cohen, 2001; Radia & Stapleton, 2008; and Yeh, 2009). Insights about this process offer valuable information and pedagogical implications. In the following sub-sections, I will present each participant’s response to my question about their source selection. Arman: I Selected Sources to Get New Information. Arman embarked on his source selection by drawing on the work of a host of scholars with whom he was already familiar, from his Master’s and Bachelor’s studies. He then found additional references in those readings and included them in his paper. As he commented, I started looking for those concepts and then I found other people . . . because the notion of visual literacy is coming from my background, so I had some people in my head already from my Master’s and my Bachelor’s, and I started to recall those people and to find them. But, as I started digging, I found that some are just putting together other people’s work and these other people’s work is more relevant and interesting . . . and some of these theories were very new and useful to me . . . If it was just a review of other works, I didn’t include it, but, if they gave me something new, then, yes, I selected them to get new information.  As Arman explains, his main motivation for selecting certain readings over others was driven by the kind of information presented in the readings. He was looking for new concepts and definitions related to visual literacy—the area in which he was striving to gain capital. Connecting his knowledge of visual literacy from his previous studies to the new ideas and information in his current field (i.e., education) motivated him to choose certain sources. His   147 background studies gave him a solid ground upon which to build and to search for relevant and recent scholarship that would help him pull his new and old forms of capital together. This was the niche of his research work in his new scholarly community, and his genuine motivation to find ways to connect his two research fields drove him to conduct extensive research into the literature.  Arman, at this stage in his program (i.e., the first year of his PhD), viewed himself more as a novitiate learner of the writing conventions of his new discipline rather than as an expert writer. He did a lot of “active” reading before starting to write, as a strategy to prepare himself for writing from sources and taking ownership of his text to claim his authorship through his textual production. He read actively in the sense that he took notes and analyzed the source texts he read. According to him, this helped in better understanding the authors’ ideas and, therefore, made his task at least “one step easier” when he wanted to write. He confirmed, “I try to categorize sources—like, I try to find patterns and categorize.” He further commented on this process: I already used one [source], and I am using the second one as a way of contrasting the first one with the second one. So basically, I am making the authors to discuss about their definitions. I just want to establish the point that there is something called functional literacy, and, these people, they say that this is [the definition of] functional literacy.  Here, Arman was actively engaged with several sources to produce a comprehensive literature review, creating a dialogue amongst original source authors; at the same time, he approached sources selectively and included only those which introduced new concepts to the field—and, as a result, could help him better present his authorial self. The interrelation of active reading and academic writing has been studied and highlighted in some studies in the field of L2 writing (e.g., Hirvela & Du, 2013). The significant role of active reading, or,   148 as Johnson-Sheehan et al. (2018) suggest, strategic reading, in successful academic source-based writing of students is also undeniable. Essi: I Used Sources to Show Respect to My Instructor’s Choices. Essi started his source search and source selection with the three books introduced by his instructor in class. The books provided a foundation for his search for additional sources, acting as maps and guiding him toward more forms of reliable capital which he could then collect to craft his own credibility as an author—as a valued writing member within his CoP. Since both his paper topic (on collaborative action research) and the course focus were on research methodologies, some of the course readings were relevant to his work. Moreover, Essi was of the opinion that including sources from the course outline in his paper would be a strategic move to denote respect to the selection of sources made by the course instructor (quite similar to Sally’s motivation, as discussed in Chapter 5). In his words,  It is a recommended practice to do so [choose sources from the course outline] for two reasons. You benefit from the experience of the instructor in selection of the most relevant and reliable sources on the topic of your interest, and, second, you show the instructor that you value their choice of sources by using them in your work.   For complementary sources, Essi then used Google Scholar, searching for keywords and collocations representing his research topic, including “action research,” “affirmative experiments,” “participatory actions,” “collaborative study” and other related terms. Finally, Essi mentioned that he checked the recent publications relevant to his topic and traced their references to find adequate sources for writing his draft. Linda: I Started with My Instructor’s Book to Learn from Her. For Linda, the search for sources began with a book authored by her course instructor. According to Linda, since her instructor was a well-established scholar in her field and a trusted holder of valued capital, it was important to use her book as a main reference in   149 drafting her term paper. This way, she could learn from her instructor’s expertise and connect the discussions in her paper with the content of the book. Also, from reading that book, she found other relevant books supporting her writing.  Linda: She [the course instructor] is an expert, so, yeah, that book, I learn a lot from . . . and a few other books which were written [cited] in her book. I found them in the library and borrowed them. They are very good books. They helped me a lot in writing the literature review.  Like Essi, the instructor’s recommended sources were the starting point for looking for more sources since Linda was writing on a topic new to her. The instructor’s published text was a good example of an acceptable form of textual capital in academia that this emerging scholar endeavoured to collect. Jeff: I Used Course Readings to Find Something of Interest. Similar to Essi and Linda, most of the sources Jeff selected were from the course outline. According to Jeff, doing so gave him peace of mind that he was starting from the right place and did not need to meander into the enormous pile of information found in the library and in other online and offline resources in search of relevant sources of capital. In response to my question about his source-selection decisions, Jeff explained how he took notes and selected chunks of source text from the readings. He provided a detailed description of his source-selection process: The readings are mostly from the course, so, basically, as I read, I come across something that is of particular interest [to me] . . . I usually make notes—write the quotes out of the document or sometimes my opinions about things—and then I just kind of make notes on each of the readings, selecting interesting quotes, not knowing which quotes I might use eventually, and then, later in the process of writing, I go back to those quotes and select which one is there that I want to use.   One strategy that Jeff had gained over his years of academic life—and currently deployed for writing his first draft—was a kind of modeling strategy, by looking at and   150 following how the expert members of his CoP (i.e., the authors of course readings and academic papers in his field) had used citations in their work. In the available literature (e.g., Flowerdew & Li, 2007; Mansourizadeh & Ahmad, 2011), this strategy has been suggested as helpful to novitiates; yet, it should be handled cautiously to avoid inappropriate copying or textual borrowing. As Jeff explained, he got the gist of the articles, then—as a means to exercise his authorship—put them aside and weaved his own ideas whilst bearing those papers in mind: I get hints from reading other people . . . I am citing them in the same kind of way they are citing the main points of [other] articles. They are doing the exact same thing, so I pick up on that . . . when I read the article, I get a sense—“Yeah, okay; now I know what that article is really supporting. This is the main point.”  Using this strategy, Jeff guaranteed his practices to be appropriate and avoided venturing down a misleading path. He had been practicing this strategy for such an extended time that, now, with a quick scan of the course readings, he can identify the citation patterns, key concepts, and major themes. Therefore, he had an image of the readings in his mind as he drafted his own paper and crafted his own textual capital. Although Jeff found this strategy useful in dealing with source texts and pulling them into his own text, he also faced challenges in this process. At some points, after lots of reading from sources, it was hard for Jeff to locate the original source of the ideas he wanted to write about. He said, Remembering where the ideas came from is a challenge. It’s when you read a lot, if you don’t take . . . notes, which I really don’t like to take extremely detailed notes because it slows you down so much. I try to take quotes that are particularly relevant and salient or interesting, but there are always these other ideas that you have read. It’s relative that I read that, and I end up spending an hour just trying to find where that one was. It’s very frustrating; there is just so much information out there. Your brain is not a computer.  Jeff’s comment clarified one important point that drawing information from multiple sources   151 to form one’s paper is not an easy task, regardless of whether one is an L1 or L2 writer. As an L1 writer, it was challenging for Jeff to retrieve all of the pieces of information he had read, which, in turn, made it difficult to weave them together properly to shape a source-based text. Among the Master’s participants, Sally also mentioned the same issue when writing from multiple sources. That was why she resorted to the note-taking and summarizing strategy, which she found helpful yet very time-consuming.  Another strategy for Jeff was applying variety to the length of the texts he borrowed from sources. While, in some places, he took just two to three words from the source (e.g., in Draft 1, p. 1), in other parts, he used lengthy sentences. He explained about this approach to source-based writing practices: Nasrin: Here [pointing to Draft 1], you prefer to use a longer sentence from the source instead of just two or three words like what you did on the first page. Why is that?  Jeff: I mean there is also just the general thing of variety. You don’t want to say things the same way every time. You look for those opportunities to vary your citation practice to make it look more . . . I can’t think of the word for that now, just, like, if you just cite in the same way all the time, you look like you are following a formula, and you don’t want to look like you are following a formula of citation. So, where there is an opportunity, where it makes sense, I provide a longer quote and then that’s part of my variety, I guess.  The ability to play with source texts and select chunks with varying lengths demonstrated Jeff’s authority in his dialogic writing. He took advantage of this skill to carefully carve out his writing by weaving together source texts of varying lengths with his own points of view in an effort to showcase to readers his authorial capital. In terms of motivations for source selection, as a point of comparison between Master’s and PhD students, it seems Master’s students have more extrinsic motivations for their source selection (e.g., to show the importance of their claims and to present their   152 extensive readings to the course instructor), while the motivations of doctoral students are more intrinsic (including learning from sources and getting new information on their research interests). Another thought-provoking finding is the similarity between Elena’s (the L1 participant in the Master’s group) and Jeff’s (the L1 participant in the PhD group) answers regarding their motivations for the selection of certain sources. While Arman, Essi, Linda, Alice, Sally, and Wendy (the L2 participants in the Master’s and PhD groups) had specific motivations for using certain sources (as presented in the relevant sections), Elena and Jeff simply stated that they looked for what felt good or was interesting to them. This might indicate the deep considerations of the participating L2 writers during their source-based writing and reveals their high level of consciousness during the process of source selection. 6.3.2 Types and Purposes of Source Integration Upon their selection of source texts, the PhD students embarked on the integration of the source information into their papers. According to their comments on the drafts during the second interview, they drew on summarizing, paraphrasing, ADQs, and, occasionally, IDQs to integrate sources into their papers. Table 6.4 presents the types, counts, and totals of these source integrations that were both identified and discussed by each of the participants during the text-based interview sessions. (It should be noted that summarizing was not a category included in the analysis of the Master’s student papers since the students did not mention that particular type of source integration during the text-based interviews.)  Table 6.4 Types of Source Integration in PhD Participants’ First Drafts Student Name Number of In-Text Number of Paraphrases Number of ADQs Number of IDQs Number of Summaries   153 Citations Arman 13 9 4 1 - Essi 63 55 8 2 - Linda 39 12 26 0 1 Jeff 40 19 20 0 1 Total Avg.: 38.8 95 58 4 2 Note. The number of in-text citations excludes IDQs by definition. Also, a hyphen signifies that an item was not identified by a participant.  In total, paraphrases had been used 95 times in the papers, and ADQs had been deployed 58 times—around two-thirds the number of times paraphrases had been used. As presented above, while Linda and Jeff each identified one example of summarizing, Arman and Essi did not identify any. In addition, more than one-third of the in-text citations in Arman’s draft fell into the category of ADQs (n = 4). While Essi had the highest number of in-text citations, he used only eight ADQs.  Linda, on the other hand, had 26 ADQs, which accounted for over two-thirds of her in-text citations. Moreover, 50% of Jeff’s citations fell into the category of ADQs (i.e., 20 out of 40). Comparing these details in the doctoral students’ while-writing drafts, as presented in Table 6.4, with those of the Master’s students in Table 5.4 in the previous chapter, I identified an evident similarity in the use of ADQs. In both groups, about one fourth of the in-text citations were in the form of ADQs, and the totals of the L1 writers’ ADQs in both groups’ drafts were at about 50% (i.e., Elena had four ADQs out of her 10 in-text citations, and Jeff had 20 ADQs out of his 40 in-text citations). For the use of each type of source integration (i.e., paraphrasing, ADQ, IDQ, and summarizing), participants mentioned certain purposes/explanations as tabulated below.    154 Table 6.5 PhD Students’ Purposes for Using the Three Types of Source Integration Source Integration Type Reason Participant(s) Who Made the Relevant Comments Paraphrasing a. To support my idea/argument b. To claim an important point a. Arman b. Jeff ADQ a. To honour the first occurrence of the word b. To avoid intervening in the conversation between the original authors c. To connect the original authors’ ideas from different sources d. To credit the original author e. To not lose any information delivered in the source text f. Because the original text is well-polished, technical, powerful & has specific meaning g. Because the original author’s words best expressed the situation a. Arman  b. Arman   c. Jeff  d. Linda e. Essi  f. Essi & Jeff   g. Linda IDQ a. Because it is common word/knowledge b. Because they are only examples a. Arman  b. Essi Summarizing a. To express one’s own ideas along with sources b. To connect several parts of the source a. Jeff  b. Linda  It is evident that there are more types of purposes here compared with those mentioned by the Master’s students. Also, it should be mentioned that not all participants identified all of these categories, but those they identified are the ones they deemed as the most significant purposes for paraphrasing, using ADQs and IDQs, and for summarizing. In the following section, I will explain the purposes/explanations for the students’ use of each type of source integration, drawing on examples from the students’ texts, along with their comments.    155 Arman’s Source Integration In his 936-word draft, Arman identified nine paraphrases, four ADQs, and one IDQ. In response to my question regarding his use of paraphrases versus direct quotes, he was of the opinion that, if he wanted to discuss an important definition from a source, he would not paraphrase it but put the original words within double quotation marks to honour the original author. In his first draft, he used two direct quotes from two major scholars in his field without including (or, as he called it, “interfering,” using) his own point of view. He placed the authors’ views within double quotation marks and juxtaposed them, leaving behind no interpretation (of his own) of the views. In explaining his practice, he said, as a researcher, he should be neutral to what scholars say and should not question their arguments. He believed he should not take sides in (written) discussions of scholars because he had not positioned himself as an “expert” in his research field yet. The following is an example: Arman’s text: Early definitions of the term (Hartendorp & American Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, Manila, 1928) shown [sic] that the difference between ‘functional literacy’ and mere literacy resided in the social purpose of the instruction: A functionally literate individual “uses his reading and writing skills to improve his social and economic life. A functionally literate individual is an enlightened and well-informed person capable of participating in the affairs of the community” (p.6), [sic] De Castell and Luke (1983) defined functional literacy as “a measure of vocational and social competence” (p. 101).  Arman’s comment: I try to be honest to the authors of the texts I read. So, my understanding of how source information must be presented to a reader is that I will always show the source of that information as close to the words I use as possible . . . also I don’t want to be there between the two authors. I don’t want to get involved in saying things like I am questioning . . . I aim at not to take sides because my role as a researcher is to be as neutral as possible . . . I am not an expert.  Arman’s comments confirm Lee et al.’s (2018) observation that second-language writers often take a “non-committal stance” (p. 1) by refraining from stating their position towards published materials (i.e., the source texts; Lee, Hitchcock, & Casal, 2018)—perhaps   156 because they do not yet see themselves as legitimate authors within their CoPs. Arman added that, due to his limited vocabulary in academic English (i.e., his lack of what he perceived was the required lexical capital to join the textual dialogue), he preferred to use direct quotes “to be safe” if he felt uncertain about his ability to effectively paraphrase a text. To support his point, he referred to an example in his draft where he used a direct quote because he was unsure about how to paraphrase the word appalling: [F]or example here, . . . “Nationwide, the statistics on literacy grow more appalling each year” (p. 58). This word [appalling] and appealing are not that different to me. But they mean completely different things, so that is one of the things. My vocabulary is not that big, so sometimes I definitely prefer to use original source because the thing is that I find myself struggling even if I want to change to rephrase something, and it works, is like [I ask myself], “Is he really trying to say this?”—even if I understand what he is trying to say when I am writing it down in my own words. Sometimes I am just not sure I am choosing the right words to say it.   While mixing his ideas and words with those from sources, Arman also found it challenging to claim authority over his textual production. He expressed his doubt with regard to the originality of his ideas and whether or not the ideas already existed in literature he might not have been familiar with. This concern discouraged him from asserting his authorial identity in his writing and encouraged him to add more in-text citations. He commented on his challenge with paraphrasing during his drafting process: I’m always afraid of saying something that I’m sure I am stating but that someone else stated in a different way before me. I am actually not sure [whether I’m] saying this for the first time, which—if you really, really know your field—then you might know. But we are starting, and we really don’t know . . . we are new [to the field] . . . so I cite at least to make sure for myself that I will not be accused of something like plagiarism . . . [moreover,] I tend not to do that [paraphrase], and I think that is mostly because of the language limitation that I feel to have right now. . . . like, for example, this thing with Freire. It took me a long time to write this paragraph. It took me, like, forever to paraphrase.  Arman’s text: Within Freire’s approach to promoting literacy, then, the process of learning literally to read and write words was an integral part of learning to   157 understand how the world operates socially and culturally in ways that produce unequal opportunities and outcomes for different groups of people.  Novice L2 researchers’ hesitancy in claiming authority and presenting their authorial voice in their writing has been discussed in the research on L2 writers (e.g., Petrić, 2012), but not at the doctoral level. Arman’s reliance on citation resulted in his draft being packed with in-text citations. Similar to Alice in the Master’s group, Arman did not distinguish between paraphrasing and summarizing. He thought packing information from a source text and integrating it into his writing was a type of paraphrasing rather than summarizing.  Arman’s comment: The packing and all those things, it is very hard . . . that notion of packing I understand it perfectly from my home language, but, in English, it is so complex for me. So, sometimes, I just need to decide if I want to pack, or if I prefer just to cite directly [quote]. Can I really put all these super complex ideas like this by myself?  Arman was not sure if he could properly borrow from sources and paraphrase their content effectively in his own words. He felt completely dependent on sources because he was afraid of being asked about what he had stated in his paper and not being able to provide a source for the information due to his perceived lack of valued form of capital. In this regard, he explains: I don’t like I picture myself, like, in a conference somewhere, and someone asking me, “Where are you taking that from? Why are you not crediting?” I will not know what to do, what to say . . . so it might be a feeling of permanent assessment, like I feel that I am assessed all the time, so I need to provide the sources so people don’t have to question me but question them [original authors].  In the one instance where he used an IDQ, Arman referred to the use of the word “shame” from an article. Although this word was not used in its common meaning in the context of that reading, Arman decided not to cite it because he considered that, for readers, it would be a common word; however, during our conversation, he changed his mind and   158 planned to cite it in his final draft in an attempt to align his practices with those of expert members in his CoP. Essi’s Source Integration Essi elaborated on the constant decisions he needed to make in terms of whether to use direct quotes or paraphrases in his source incorporation process. According to Essi, it can be hard to paraphrase and not directly quote texts that look perfect as they are (i.e., “polished,” to borrow Essi’s word). Therefore, to “do justice” to the original text and to not leave out any information, Essi decided to use ADQs. At times, it was difficult for him to paraphrase, “especially if something [was] kind of very dense and theoretical,” almost to the point where he was not able to understand it. In such cases, similar to Arman, Essi would prefer to use the exact words from the source. In his 3,320-word draft, he relied on seven ADQs, ranging in length from five words to a whole paragraph. As a case in point, Essi selected a block quote because he thought the original text was too technical and academically dense for him, and, if he paraphrased it, he might have lost some significant information. Essi’s comment: These people talk about it; I felt I would miss something if I were to use other words. You can get the general idea, but you really have to [say the exact words]. You can’t get the exact same meaning in other words . . . I felt it wouldn’t do them justice to paraphrase that. I felt that was important; otherwise, I would never do that; I wouldn’t quote.  Essi’s block quote: [The] underlying assumption is noteworthy: intellectual direction for social science research is beyond the capacity of nonprofessional, nonacademic indigenous constituents. This is highly problematic for projects such as the one in Ulukhaktok where the very quest is for the intellectual material—that is pitquhiraluavut (our ways)—whose competency is called into question by these arrangements. (Chambers & Balanoff, 2009, p. 83)  In the above example, the original authors were discussing the knowledge understanding of a group of aboriginal people. Due to the condensed data provided in these few lines, Essi   159 found it difficult to paraphrase. According to Essi, the authors clarified both some of the problematic issues with collaboration and participation in teaching and research, and how the underlying understanding of knowledge and participation contribute to these issues; these concepts were highly dense and difficult for Essi to paraphrase. As a result, he decided to surrender the possibility of collecting further capital through paraphrasing. Regarding paraphrasing, Essi identified a total of 55 paraphrases in his draft. He felt challenged by paraphrasing. For him, it was a big problem, or challenge, both to decide to use a paraphrase over a direct quote and to know how to paraphrase the content. As he explicated,  I always consider it as, like, a big problem, but it can be . . . a question of how when you are paraphrasing. I was just doing that the other day. I think it was yesterday. I was writing something; I was like, saying [to myself], “How much”—like, when you paraphrase—like, “How much do you change?” and, like, “How changing and replacing synonyms . . . ?” . . . that kind of stuff. I don’t know. Basically, I guess, if I can paraphrase, I will paraphrase; if not, or, if, like, it’s a really succinct phrase or something heavy, I quote it.   To overcome his “big problem,” Essi came up with a solution:  I read on the topic and decided about a few key themes and then read through readings in detail to pull out the relevant information in sources to write on each theme. My philosophy is to read sources and take my notes, and then I can see the points I want to focus on and then think about the themes and read more and then start to paraphrase.  The themes that emerged as he read the literature review helped him to organize his thoughts around the topics he desired to cover in the paper. This technique allowed him to craft the textual capital as he so desired. Unlike the L2 Master’s students (i.e., Sally, Wendy, and Alice), who extracted direct quotes to create their notes first, Essi embarked on paraphrasing source ideas as he read them, taking notes using his own words; as a result, his notes were mostly paraphrases rather than direct quotes. Here is an example of his paraphrasing whilst   160 note-taking: Source text: Kamberelis and de la Luna (1998, p. 479) [original text not identified by Essi]  Essi’s paraphrased note: To even the balance between the roles, the researcher took on teaching and invited the teacher to assume the role of researcher.  Since he deployed his own words as he took notes, he later found it easier to use them in his paper, expand his thoughts on them, or even paraphrase them again to make them fit better within his draft as he wove a textual dialogue with the other authors. As for the two cases of IDQ use, he argued that, because they were examples he collected from sources, and he would eventually elaborate on them, it was not problematic that they were not quoted. The two consecutive cases are as follows: “A number of names for intervention research other than AR include, among others, formative evaluation and developmental work research [emphasis in Essi’s draft] (Reinking & Bradley, 2004), formative research, teaching experiments, design-based research [emphasis in Essi’s draft] (Reinking & Bradley, 2008).” In the examples, the citations for all of the keywords had been done partially, missing page numbers and double quotation marks, which, of course, makes sense for a while-writing draft. Linda’s Source Integration In comparison with other participants, Linda explained very briefly about her paper during the second interview. She responded to each of my questions after a short pause and had some hesitancy in her responses to my questions regarding the source-integration decisions she had made between, for example, ADQs and paraphrasing. In the writing of her 11-page draft, she had used the same references from her outline, at the time of the first interview. Linda explained that she used ADQs whenever she felt that the original author’s   161 words “best expressed the situation.” In her working draft, there were 26 occasions where she used ADQs ranging between one word to a few sentences. For her paper, she analyzed seven studies on a common topic. She explained that, from a writing course she had taken last semester, she had learned that she was expected to limit her use of ADQs to about 7-8% in her paper. However, at the time of the second interview, I noted that her working draft was replete with disconnected direct quotes taken from sources, still in need of further organization before her draft would convert into a well-formed essay representing the textual knowledge of the authors through the dialogue created. She commented, “I try to use paraphrases because, if I use too many direct quotes, I am worried that the reader would think that I am lazy or I don’t have any words.” She commented on the challenges of paraphrasing and using her own ideas and words when integrating sources, as well as her strategies to overcome them, such as structural modifications of the original texts and synonym use. (Similar findings have been reported in Shi et al., 2018.) [S]ometimes, when I say something, when I write something, I think maybe someone else said that same thing in their article or book—like, maybe I should look for that information somewhere . . . Also, when paraphrasing, I have to say it in a different way but maintain the same meaning so sometimes that’s hard to do . . . For paraphrasing, I try to first think of changing the sentence structure—like, grammatical structure—because, in English, you can say one thing in many different ways, so I think I will say that will be the first step. Also, maybe, using synonyms for some words and using direct quotation, I think, because it is important to distinguish what the author said.  With regard to ADQs, Linda believed they were an effective way to credit the original author and distinguish her words from those of the original author. Linda raised an interesting and thought-provoking point as she elaborated on the issue of presenting her voice alongside others in her draft.  Linda’s comment: In the past, I used to stick to one source and use it through the paper . . . but now I think I know how to use many citations, many voices in one   162 paragraph or in one section—also, how to add my own voice to them. Actually, I am still struggling with the voice thing because I think, in this paper, I can include my voice, but, in the past, it was more of presenting others’ [voices]. Yeah, I tried to be more conscious about how to include my voice. So, in this paper I used “I.”   As a sign of an emerging scholar, Linda started to recognize her voice and began to feel comfortable and confident with including her standpoint in her writing. Being a doctoral student had given her a sense of confidence in writing from her own point of view and in collecting new forms of capital so that she could eventually add her voice to the conversation happening amongst her source authors (Ouellette, 2008). Jeff’s Source Integration Unlike some of Arman’s and Essi’s uses of ADQs (which were used to avoid intervening in conversations between original authors or to avoid losing any information conveyed in source texts), Jeff, who is an experienced academic-writing teacher, believed that direct quotes should be used, but strategically and sparingly, to provide an author with more space to articulate her/his own thoughts, thereby affording her/him the opportunity to gain appropriate capital and progress from the periphery to the centre of a CoP. Jeff: [J]ust as a general rule, if you are going to quote long stretches of texts, do it sparingly, and do it when you think it is written so well or it is so clear that it makes sense to do it, but then you have to use it strategically and sparingly because, otherwise, you are letting the other people control your writing too much. You are not taking control of the writing. You are letting it control you, and I think you have to be wary of that.  Jeff revealed his established authorial identity (Ivanič, 1998) through the manner in which he talked about his experience writing from sources. He emphasized using a controlled amount of direct quotes and warned about losing one’s own authorial voice and thread of ideas through too much reliance on source texts.    163 When he cited ADQs, Jeff seemed to put even one single word from a source between double quotation marks if he felt it had a specific meaning in the context of his writing; for example, there was an instance that I asked Jeff about, where he cited the words neo-positivistic and romantic in his draft. Jeff’s text: On the basis of this analysis I realized that, despite approaching the interview from a decidedly “neo-positivistic” and “romantic” perspective (Roulston, 2010), I clearly co-constructed the interview data in tandem with my interview partners.  Jeff’s comment: [B]ecause those are specific terms that I am using, the definitions are very specific to that author, even though they are general terms that don’t necessarily need to be in quotes [in other situations].  Although Jeff put double quotation marks around each individual term, he explained that he purposefully did not include the page number for each because he was emphasizing the author, not the location of the terms (i.e., the pages they appeared on in the original source). Jeff also explicated that he used ADQs to combine two or more ideas together, including information he had acquired from his sources about two different understandings of interviews. It was a strategy for him—and probably a sign of a developing authorial voice—to synthesize his own writing by drawing on different parts of a source. Here is an example: Jeff’s text: He notes that the latter problematizes the assumptions of the former by conceptualizing interviews “not as sites for the excavation of information held by respondents, but as participation in social practices” (2011, p. 28). However, from a research instrument perspective, “interviews are theorized (often tacitly) as a resource for investigating truths, facts, experiences, beliefs, attitudes, and/or feelings of respondents” and language is treated as a “neutral medium” corresponding to “objective or subjective reality” and interview data are ontologically ascribed the status of “reports”, as “epistemological conduits”, of what “really” happened, or what participants “actually” felt (p. 131).  According to Jeff, when he uses in-text citations, it is often because he has recollected some ideas from readings, and he wants to draft those ideas in his own words without using any   164 specific words from the sources. He used sources in his draft to support his ideas and to help him present a claim in his dialogue with other authors, as the following example illustrates.  Jeff’s text: Research interviews are one of the most common techniques utilized in social science research (Roulston, 2010), yet there is a remarkable lack of specificity evident regarding the epistemological and ontological assumptions underlying this ubiquitous data-gathering strategy (Atkinson & Silverman, 1997; Talmy, 2011).  Jeff’s comment: I use these people to support my argument [about the lack of specificity regarding the epistemological and ontological assumptions in research interviews] . . . It is a basic claim I’m making here but need these people to support what I’m saying.   While writing, at times Jeff felt he was challenged when integrating sources into his text. To overcome his challenges, Jeff employed a few strategies that he also recommended to peers as sensible ways of collecting more capital. As a case in point, he explained:  [It is hard] to decide when you do want to paraphrase or you do want to integrate various people’s ideas. It’s [a challenge] being able to represent those accurately, being able to really understand what that person means from the words that they use. [To overcome this challenge,][w]hen reading articles, try to write notes. When you read an article, pick the points that you think are salient, but also write a reflection that tries to capture your thought on the essence of the article. Then, [write about] what it means to you and what you agree with or what you disagree with in the article.  According to Jeff, taking simple notes without including one’s own point of view can be helpful to one’s recalling of what an article is about; however, it might just be “a bunch of de-contextualize quotes” if the writer does not write a reflection on it. Moreover, Jeff found reading actively as the key to moving from too much reliance on sources to writing his own ideas: I think becoming an active reader as opposed to a passive reader [is the key]. Now, when I read, I react—like read-and-response kind of thing. So, I never used to make notes on the side. I never used to make comments. I think I used to think of writing, “Oh, wow; this person is so smart! Who am I to question what this person is saying?” But, over the years, you develop confidence to know that all of these people are just people with opinions, so we don’t have to treat their words like they are so amazing .   165 . . having the confidence to know that you are entitled to your own opinion, too—it is important.   As Jeff described, published authors are good writers with new ideas to share. It is important for novice writers to realize this point—to think deeply about and analyze what they read and to express their opinions in relation to what has already been said in order to be part of the textual conversation in their field. A distinctive feature of Jeff’s source-integration process, in comparison with other PhD participants, is that he emphasized writing first from his general understanding of a source or several sources (i.e., without necessarily relying on linguistically reformulating content from source texts) and then drawing in sources to show his argument (i.e., adding in-text citations to support his own claims). Another important note is that, although half of his in-text citations were ADQs, he spread them very sparingly and strategically so that they did not interfere with the presentation of his own standpoint, in his own voice, among others’. 6.3.3 Summary Upon analysis of the second set of interviews with the four doctoral students, along with their while-writing drafts and original sources, some worthwhile observations emerged. One significant point is that, unlike Master’s students, who showed more extrinsic motivations for drawing on sources, all four emerging scholars possessed some sort of intrinsic drive to select sources and pull them into their writing. Viewing these motivations in light of their long-term professional goal of becoming scholars in their respective fields, it is understandable that they are inspired to look for sources and integrate them into their drafts. They are collecting forms of capital they will need to continuously draw on for the next many years of their careers as academics. Moreover, unlike the participating Master’s students, all of the PhD participants distinguished between summarizing and paraphrasing as   166 two types of source integration. In particular, Linda and Jeff identified examples where they paraphrased and summarized ideas from multiple sources.  With respect to the purposes for choosing different types of source integration, it is intriguing to note that, while all Master’s students mentioned condensing and simplifying source information as their main purposes for paraphrasing, PhD students mostly mentioned supporting and claiming knowledge as their main goals for paraphrasing. This finding suggests more established authorial identities among the PhD students since they already have some ideas from their own standpoints and are in search of the best possible ways to support them using sources. However, there exist similarities between the two groups, as both Master’s and doctoral students mentioned using ADQs to present formal and technical knowledge from their respective fields. Finally, like the Master’s students, doctoral participants also faced a range of challenges with writing from sources, including striking a balance between the use of ADQs and paraphrasing and ensuring their paraphrases were accurate and conformed to the expectations of the expert members in the field—that is, their graduate course instructors. 6.4 Modifications in Final Drafts The last set of text-based interviews took place after participants submitted their final papers to their course instructors. Table 6.6 presents specifications of the final drafts the students shared and discussed with me during the third individual interview sessions.  Table 6.6 Specifications of PhD Students’ Final Drafts (Third Interview) Student Name Number of References Number of In-Text Citations Number of Words in In-Text Citation Density   167 in Reference List Final Draft (per 1,000 words) Arman 121 184 17,918 10.2 Essi 45 95 5,352 17.7 Linda 24 66 4,937 13.3 Jeff 17 43 4,942 8.7 Average 51.8 97 8,287.3 11.7  As Table 6.6 highlights, the participating doctoral students drew on 17 (in the case of Jeff) to 121 (in the case of Arman) sources to complete their final drafts. Amongst them all, Arman’s paper underwent the most dramatic extension in length compared to his earlier draft—from under 1,000 words to nearly 18,000 words in length. In terms of citation density, Essi’s paper had the highest density of them all, with a density of 17.7 citations per 1,000 words. To facilitate comparison and contrast of the modifications across the two drafts for each participant, Table 6.7 presents the word counts and citation densities, as well as the frequencies in the use of source integration types, as identified and discussed by participating students.  Table 6.7 Specifications of PhD Students’ Term Papers Across Two Drafts Student Name Paraphrase ADQ IDQ Summary Word Count In-Text Citation Density (per 1,000 words)  D1 D2 D1 D2 D1 D2 D1 D2 D1 D2 D1 D2   168 Arman 9 128 4 56 1 17 - - 936 17,918 13.9 10.2 Essi 55 79 8 16 2 0 - - 3,320 5,352 19.0 17.7 Linda 12 47 26 19 0 1 1 - 2,240 4,937 16.9 13.3 Jeff 19 20 20 23 0 1 1 - 3,479 4,942 11.2 8.7 Average 23.8 68.5 14.5 28.5 0.75 4.75 - - 2,493.8 8,287.3 15.3 11.7 Note. D1 = Draft 1; D2 = Draft 2. Also, hyphens indicate that the participant did not mention the source-integration type during the third interview.   6.4.1 Modifications in Arman’s Final Draft Unlike Arman’s first draft, which was less than 1,000 words in length and the shortest of the doctoral first drafts, his final draft was quite lengthy, with 17,918 words, excluding his reference list and footnotes. Although Peter (i.e., his mentor, or “editor,” as Arman called him) recommended that Arman be selective with sources and avoid over-explaining and over-citing, Arman’s final draft contained a high number of in-text citations—184 (i.e., 128 paraphrases and 56 ADQs [and 17 IDQs]). However, because of his lengthier final draft in comparison to his first draft, his in-text citation density came down to 10.2 citations per 1,000 words—close to the average for the field (i.e., 10.8 citations per 1,000 words [Hyland, 2000]). Below is an instance of Arman’s heavy reliance on several sources in just a few sentences. Arman’s final-draft text: [T]here have been several frameworks for visual analysis produced since the publication of A Pedagogy . . . (see, for example, Barton, Hamilton, & Ivanič, 2000; Jewitt & Van Leeuwen, 2001; Kress & Van Leeuwen, 1996; Rose, 2007; etc.) . . . there have been enough documented medical cases to prove that shape perception and face recognition are two different processes (Blakemore, 1977; Cook, 1999; Lurii͡ a, 1972; Nelson, 2001; Sacks, 1998) . . . however, there is extended theoretical support for the idea that facial recognition is in fact a holistic process within which facial features, in particular the eyes and   169 surrounding area, do play a role but are not the only factors (Balas & Horski, 2012; Dahl, Logothetis, Bülthoff, & Wallraven, 2010; Keil, 2009; Peterson & Eckstein, 2012; Sadr, Jarudi, & Sinha, 2003) . . . there is a relative agreement in the basic organization of the visual principles among scholars and researchers that have tackled these topics (see, for example, Gibson, 1961; Hatfield & Epstein, 1985; Koffka, 1935; Marr, 1982; Messaris, 1994).   Taking different chunks of the same source in the form of direct quotations, like the following examples, was also a common source-based writing practice for Arman across his both drafts. Arman’s first-draft text: The article presented a distressing scenario about the state of practical literacy: “Willy-nilly, the U.S. educational system is spawning a generation of semiliterates . . . Nationwide, the statistics on literacy grow more appalling each year.” (p.58). The reactions to this document were various. The long-term impact of television was the first pick among culprits; E.B. White, an emeritus essayist of The New Yorker was quoted in Sheils’ article by saying “Short of throwing away all the television sets, I really don't know what we can do about writing” (p.60).  Arman’s final-draft text: Booth (1963) stated that the balance between these three strands was something that the practitioners of rhetorical discourse production should look for; he called this balance “the rhetorical stance” (p.141), and clearly established that it is not easy to achieve. Booth also offered a nomenclature for cases of unbalanced stances, or, as he called them “corruptions” (p.141) or “perversions” (p.143) of the rhetorical stance.  As Arman explicated his practices, he expressed uncertainty and lack of confidence in academic writing that could be connected to a perceived lack of capital. As a first-year PhD student and a newcomer to the field of education (from the information-design field), he was not confident in expressing his ideas (i.e., in making his voice known) in his paper; hence, he preferred to rely heavily on source texts. He said, There is something that is, like, undeniable, and it is the fact that I don’t feel confident enough in the field of education for stating things. I just don’t feel confident. I can say maybe—because, somehow, I am combining education with the visual aspect of literacy, and it is new to my writing—I try to include more source texts to support what I want to say in this [paper].    170 Evidently, gaining entry and being fully involved in the relevant disciplinary writing of one’s community of practice required a lot of practice that Arman was exercising. Since his area of research was trans-disciplinary, as he called it, after preparing his first draft, he expanded his search for sources to areas outside of the field of education to enrich his work. He explained, “Yeah, later [after the second interview], I added more sources—way more sources. Well, I’m researching on a field that is trans-disciplinary, so some of the things that I found in other disciplines were actually highly informing my paper.” To integrate those sources, he began with ideas presented in those sources and tried to integrate his own ideas into them in order to join the scholarly conversation. Arman explained that, because he needed support for his writing, he added more sources and kept all of the sources he had already had at the time of the second interview. The source selection and addition process was filled with a multitude of challenges, he described. The difficulty with organizing so many sources was one of the main challenges. To overcome this challenge, he made mental maps and visuals to help him categorize sources. When explaining modifications he had made to the types of source integration he had used, he said, “I tried to rephrase or pack what I already had, and, of course, add more sources.” These attempts resulted in 128 paraphrases, 56 ADQs, and 17 IDQs in his 77-page final draft. These types of source integration were identified by Arman and discussed during the third interview, which took almost two hours. During the interview, Arman elaborated that he, in fact, had embedded ADQs within his paraphrases (as elaborated on in Petrić, 2012). When explaining his purpose for such a practice in the following example, Arman emphasized that not being a North American, as well as coming from a different discipline, worked against the flow of writing, in his opinion,   171 and resulted in his using words directly from sources in order to help him claim knowledge and authority while paraphrasing—a practice found in both of his drafts. Arman’s comment: I don’t feel myself like North American, and I am talking about a field or context to which I am an alien, basically, so, even that I know it used to be 3Rs, I have to cite [quote] these people. Maybe if I was born here, I might not cite.  Arman’s final-draft text: Prior to 1970, education in North America was divided into the instruction of “the three Rs” (reading, writing, and arithmetic) for North American students and ‘literacy’ instruction, primarily given in non-formal educational contexts for the rest of the population (De Castell & Luke, 1983; Lankshear, 2003).   Arman’s first-draft text: A functionally literate individual is an enlightened and well-informed person capable of participating in the affairs of the community” (p.6), De Castell and Luke (1983) defined functional literacy as “a measure of vocational and social competence” (p. 101). The resource for assessing whether an individual was ‘functional literate’ or not was the progress that that individual had within the formal schooling system. According to Houringan (1994) in the U.S. this requirement increased episodically depending on “concrete historical circumstances” (De Castell & Luke, 1983, p. 106), from a fourth-grade educational level in the 30’s, to the completion of secondary school in the mid 70’s (Hourigan, 1994).  Moreover, Arman mentioned that he used ADQs to avoid providing information out of context, which might make him appear inexpert. “If you use the ideas, but not the word, you might write out of context,” Arman said. He also emphasized that he used ADQs because some original authors had used very journalistic language, and Arman desired to keep their phrasing as it was. The following is an example of three instances (emphasized). Arman’s text: The second factor presented by Lankshear for the showcase of literacy in education was the sudden awareness of a “great American writing crisis [emphasis added by present researcher]” (presented in Why Johnny Can’t Write, 2009) in the U.S. in the early 70’s, triggered by an article published in Newsweek magazine titled “Why Johnny Can’t Write” (Sheils, 1975). This article presented a distressing portrait of the state of practical literacy: “Willy-nilly, the U.S. educational system is spawning a generation of semi-literates [. . .] Nationwide, the statistics on literacy grow more appalling each year [emphasis added by present researcher]” (p. 58). The reactions to this document were various. The long-term impact of television was the first pick among culprits; E.B. White, an emeritus essayist of The New Yorker was quoted in Sheils’ article by saying “Short of throwing away all the television sets, I really don’t know what we can do about writing [emphasis added by present researcher]” (p. 60).    172  Arman’s comment: I cannot imagine another way to say all these. He is using a very journalistic language which is, in terms of rhetorical speaking, is kind of basically like saying the US educational system is spawning a generation of semi-literate people.  Arman believed that the style the original author used to write was unique, and he wanted to keep it that way because it was powerful—an argument similar to the one he gave for his use of ADQs at the time of the second interview. At times, in the final draft, Arman had used double quotation marks around a single word taken from a source because he thought it was a newly introduced word and wanted to help the reader locate the word in the original source. Arman’s text: Debes’ central contention was that the visual is a language, one that can be placed on par with verbal language (Fransecky & Debes, 1972); further, he and others spoke of a visual literacy that was to be defined as a set of visual skills or “competencies [emphasis added by present researcher]” (p. 7).  As for his use of IDQs, he explained that, in two cases, because he had read a lot about certain people in his research field, he did not feel the need to cite them anymore. Here is an example: Arman’s text: The sociocultural turn framed some of the first advents of Vygotsky’s and Luria’s theories as well as the work of many other theorists who eventually became of key importance to modern education.  Arman’s comment: You know, maybe I spend so much time reading about these guy that it just became common for me, so it was so close to me that I felt it is okay to just write about them without quoting.  Arman was so immersed in Vygotsky’s and Luria’s readings that he felt no need to cite them. Interestingly, he said he was not thinking like that a few months back, but, after taking the course he was writing for, he became familiar with these scholars’ work and did not think about citing them in his paper anymore—although, at the end of our conversation on this example, Arman was uncertain about not citing them. Arman’s indecision about citing or not citing could have been indicative of Arman’s being in a transitional stage and   173 his developing authorial identity. For the rest of his IDQs (i.e., a total of 15 out of 17 IDQs), he had partially cited words he took from sources. Here is an example from Arman’s text (with emphasis added to the IDQs); Arman only mentioned the author’s name and year of publication later in his text. Arman’s text: Secondness [emphasis added by present researcher] is defined in terms of the relation between a Representamen [emphasis added by present researcher] with its Object [emphasis added by present researcher], without taking into account the influence of Interpretants [emphasis added by present researcher]. Therefore, it is not exactly a sign per se.  This practice of Arman’s was a feature of the discipline from which he came (i.e., old capital which he had ported with him to his new discipline), where the borrowing and integration of small chunks of words from sources without the inclusion of a full citation was encouraged, as Arman clarified. 6.4.2 Modifications in Essi’s Final Draft Essi’s final draft had a modest drop in citation density from 19 to 17.7 citations per 1,000 words, with paraphrasing being the default source-use practice. Essi also doubled his use of ADQs in his final draft (i.e., from 8 to 16 ADQs); in explaining his purposes for his increased usage of ADQs, he said that, wherever he felt the original text was either well-worded or presented an important idea, he preferred to use ADQs over paraphrasing—an argument very similar to Arman’s. Moreover, for Essi, the amount of modification necessary to appropriately paraphrase the wording from the original source still remained a challenge at times. One strategy he resorted to in order to overcome this challenge was to take notes and read the original source text several times over before paraphrasing it.  Essi: I have notes . . . then I go back, I maybe read through them again. Let’s say, I have maybe one page read and took notes, and I am like, “Oh, this is something that has to do with ‘reciprocity’ [the topic of his paper], I have to read that again, check that out” . . . yeah, I have to make this point [out of it].   174  Essi was similar to Arman in that he also began writing from the sources themselves rather than from his own thoughts and arguments. He thought the term paper he was writing was on a new topic; therefore, he would not be able to write much from himself and preferred to read and rely on the sources suggested by his instructor in order to form his ideas and gradually join in the dialogue through his text. Essi: It is more interesting [for me] to start with my own ideas and find support for them, but I think—because this one in particular—I didn’t know very much about any of these; I didn’t know much about collaboration . . . I didn’t know about action research . . . I didn’t have clear ideas. The truth is that, when you don’t really know much, you can always say something very trivial or something off the top of your head, but, after reading the literature, I had something to say.    As Essi explained above, he did not have background knowledge to draw on (i.e., he lacked relevant capital) while writing this term paper; therefore, he relied on information from sources and began his writing by putting together and presenting ideas from the original source authors—a practice that, according to him, was less interesting. 6.4.3 Modifications in Linda’s Final Draft In her final draft, Linda had consulted and integrated 24 sources. To find her sources, she had searched for the keyword case study in titles or abstracts of relevant literature. Just like Essi, Linda clarified that she had started with ideas and words she got from sources and then added her own ideas, borrowing original authors’ textual capital to build her own. To do that, she collected some statements and put them on a Word document, read them, and then decided how to connect them using different types of source integration. In Linda’s own words: “I have chosen these studies based on a keyword search of ‘case study’ or ‘case studies’ in article titles or abstracts.”   175 Once she had completed her final draft, the length was almost double what it had been in her first draft (i.e., 2,240 words in her first draft and 4,937 words in her final draft), and the number of paraphrases Linda had used had quadrupled (i.e., from 12 to 47). On the other hand, Linda was the only PhD student who had used fewer ADQs in her final draft (i.e., from 26 to 19 ADQs). She explained that it was only for terminology definitions that she relied on ADQs instead of paraphrasing because she thought they showed the original ideas more efficiently in the textual dialogue she was creating. Here is an example:  Linda’s text: For example, according to Merriam (1998), a case is “a thing, single entity, a unit around which there are boundaries” (p. 27) . . . Although this study did not follow the traditional case study research report, this type of research report meets Stake’s (1995) description of a case study report as “a narrative account, a story, a chronological presentation, [or a] personalistic description” (p. 87) . . . Hood (2009) himself defines a case as “a bounded system comprised of an individual, institution, or entity and the site and context in which social action takes place, boundaries of which may not be clear and are determined by the scope of the researcher’s interests” (p. 69).  “Giving credit where credit was due” describes this example and similar ones from Linda’s final draft, as Linda desired to clarify who had introduced a certain term to the field first and how it had been initially defined. The one example of an IDQ in her final draft was, in fact, a partial citation where page number had been missing. Linda’s text: Multiple case study designs are recommended when comparing cases to strengthen external validity (generalizability) or transferability to other cases (Merriam, 1998; Yin, 2003), as it has the merit of “theorizing about a broader category of cases” (Hood, 2009).  Linda mentioned that she had failed to correct this because she had been so engaged with checking the other aspects of her paper—though, she was completely aware of the APA citation rules regarding direct-quote usage. Moreover, she mentioned that dealing with APA style was different in Asia, where she received her BA and MA degrees—and where she   176 possessed the capital necessary to be considered legitimate in her CoP. Since instructors were not that strict about following APA rules, she was used to not paying attention to them either; it took some time and practice in her new CoP for her not to forget to follow all of the details concerning APA style in her writing from sources—that is, to remember to collect new forms of legitimate textual capital in her current CoP. After completing her final draft but before submitting it, Linda had asked a classmate whom she considered to be knowledgeable to comment on her use of grammar and citations. When I inquired about the qualifications she thought her peer had to be considered knowledgeable in her view, Linda said that she asked him “because I know he is a native speaker and has a lot of experience in writing papers in English. He knows a lot about APA.” Therefore, Linda considered him to be an expert member of her CoP and a holder of enough academic capital to comment on her text (potentially adding to her capital). 6.4.4 Modifications in Jeff’s Final Draft Jeff’s final paper was a few words shy of 5,000 (i.e., 4,942 words) and was different in its focus compared to the other participants’ papers; Jeff had decided to report on an analysis of a set of primary data he had collected earlier. His course instructor had provided three options for writing the final paper (see Table 6.1), and Jeff had selected the third option—a short qualitative interview study on a relevant topic in education—for which he analyzed some interview data he had collected during his teaching experience overseas. Jeff was, in fact, the only participant who claimed that he shaped his draft by first positing his own arguments and then supporting them by selecting and integrating ideas from sources. In his final draft, he drew on 17 sources and used them 44 times in his text. Jeff, who had been in the field of education from the outset of his postsecondary education and had worked as a   177 university writing tutor, showed confidence in beginning with his own arguments and writing in his own words. Jeff: Essentially, it’s entirely my own words, but it’s a basic claim that is supported by those authors. A lot of my writing is not paraphrasing exactly [or] taking exactly what other people are saying and putting them into your writing. It is mostly coming up with my own arguments that are then supported by people in my field.  Jeff claimed that, if he was not expected to write from sources, he would not use sources because he had his own thoughts and arguments as a result of his extensive reading in the field. He explained that he needed sources in his paper to appear academic and to be accepted into academia. Jeff’s source selection and integration practices were, then, a strategic decision to obtain legitimate textual capital. Jeff’s selection of sources for the purpose of supporting his ideas perhaps explains why he had the lowest citation density among the four participants (i.e., 8.7 citations per 1,000 words). It is important to note that, although the citation density in Jeff’s paper was low, his rate of using ADQs was relatively high (i.e., 23 out of 44 in-text citations). Yet, an interesting observation was that most of the instances of ADQ usage in his paper were quite limited in length; nine cases included only two to seven words, four cases were one phrase long, three cases were one clause long, and seven cases were one sentence long. This observation can be interpreted as a strategic skill, demonstrating Jeff’s ability to play around with sources and integrate varying lengths of them into his own writing to accomplish his purpose of using citations to support his own ideas (i.e., crafting them to build his own authority within his textual dialogue with other authors). Such embedded quotes within his own sentences can be seen in the following example from Jeff’s final draft: For the larger study, my approach to the interview appeared to be “neo-positivistic” in that it focused on eliciting qualitative data about participants’ “beliefs, perceptions, experiences and opinions” that could be subsequently coded and categorized based on   178 phenomenological procedures (Roulston, 2010, p. 52), but it was also “romantic” in that I “contributed my own views to the conversation in order to heighten rapport” and I performed an interview style designed to “produce evocative narrative accounts concerning the participants’ life worlds” (p. 57).   As for the single IDQ instance, shown below, Jeff only failed to include double quotation marks on one side of a borrowed phrase:  Jeff’s text: According to Roulston (2010), one the main criticisms of the constructionist approach to interviews is that the analytic focus is too ‘narrow,’ and that the aim of examining both ‘how’ data are constructed and ‘what’ the topic of talk concerns” is incompatible with the critique that has been directed at both the neo-positivist or romantic perspectives (p. 63).  As evident, the initial double quotation mark was missing from the text. It should have been appeared before “the analytic.” 6.4.5 Summary  The collected textual and oral data at the time of the third text-based interview provided the ground to compare not only each participant’s final draft with their while-writing draft, but also made it possible to cross-compare the practices of the four doctoral participants as they strived to join the core activities of their CoPs through crafting acceptable forms of capital. On another level, it offered a window to compare the source-based writing practices of PhD students with their Master’s peers. Analyses of the final round of text-based interviews revealed a variety of purposes for adding more sources and integrating them using paraphrases or direct quotes. For instance, there was not a uniform purpose among the PhD students for using ADQs; for Arman, obtaining support was the main purpose; for Essi, ADQs were more for stylistic purposes; for Linda, they were for defining terminology; and, for Jeff, ADQs served an academically strategic purpose. With regard to summaries, at the time of the third interview, none were reported to have been used by any of the PhD students in their source-writing process. This finding could have been   179 associated with the fact that, as they were attempting to combine in their writing their own voices and views with those of the original authors, summarizing might have seemed to have contained too much source information to have been considered a desirable method of integrating source material into their term papers. 6.5 Conclusion The data analyses in this chapter have pinpointed a few key findings. First and foremost, they have contrasted with findings in other studies where frequent use of direct quotes has been associated with novice L2 writing practices. As discussed and highlighted in this and previous chapters, the L1 participants (i.e., Elena and Jeff) drew on source texts in the form of direct quotations quite frequently in their first and final drafts. For example, Jeff, as discussed in the earlier analysis, used carefully selected, directly quoted chunks from his sources in a variety of strategic ways, leaving a positive impression on his primary reader (i.e., the course instructor). This effective use of direct quotes confirmed Jeff’s expertise as a source user and his authority as an experienced writer. The L2 doctoral writers also drew source texts into their writing for very clear purposes (as listed in Table 6.5), despite, at times, exerting less authorial confidence (as discussed in Ouellette, 2008, among others) than the L1 writers. For instance, Arman seemed quite hesitant about presenting his own voice and inclined more toward facilitating conversation between the authors in his sources. Yet, his motivation for learning in his new field resulted in the creation of a 77-page file, a potential demonstration of perseverance. Such effort toward integration into one’s CoP hints toward increased pedagogical support. While skillful coaching of a novice academic writer—by an expert member in one’s relevant community—about the “how”s of source-based writing can aid in the further acceptance of   180 novice practitioners into a CoP (such as in Arman’s case), preventative and punitive instruction can unintentionally, yet drastically, discourage and even hinder students’ attempts to participate in the central practices of their academic communities—in this case, in the practices of appropriate source use (as in Alice’s case, where the warning notes about her source use and the questioning approach of her previous research committee did not lead to any progress in her source-based writing practice but rather confused her about expectations regarding citation and resulted in her overuse of citations). This discussion about expert members’ support in the source-use learning process of newcomers links the findings of this chapter to the next chapter by shifting focus toward the graduate instructors (i.e., expert members) and their comments regarding their students’ handling of sources.     181 Chapter 7: Instructors as Audience of Graduate Students’ Source-Based Writing 7.1 Overview of Chapter In this chapter, in response to my second research question about how instructors evaluate students’ source-based writing in their term papers, I will present the highlights of teachers’ comments on the participating students’ final papers, the ways they supported their students’ source-based writing, and factors they considered to be influential in successful and unsuccessful students’ writing from sources. Debates concerning the inappropriate use of sources as a common feature of novice academic writing have been a focus of second-language (L2) writing research at postsecondary levels, including at graduate levels (e.g., Flowerdew & Li, 2007; Pecorari, 2016). Available scholarship highlights not only novice student writer challenges with writing from sources but also academics’ concerns and diverging judgements in this regard (e.g., Abasi & Akbari, 2008; Shi, 2011; Sutherland-Smith, 2005). Despite these documented difficulties, research on expert instructors’ views regarding the contributing factors to successful and unsuccessful source-based writing (including term-paper writing) is sparse. In spite of the significant role of instructors in the process of socializing graduate students into the conventions of writing from sources, only a few studies have sought instructors’ views on students’ intertextual practices and asked for pedagogical recommendations based on their classroom experiences (e.g., Keck, 2006; Shi, 2012a, 2012b). Even fewer studies have sought graduate instructors’ recommendations across graduate levels and language backgrounds, both first language (L1) and second language (L2). Undoubtedly, if academics do not take informed approaches in response to intertextual practices, novice writers and, in particular, the under-attack L2 novice writers will continue to be viewed as inefficient   182 writers. The prevalence of this regulatory point of view leads to punitive, rather than pedagogical, solutions, with negative consequences for students’ future academic and professional lives. Besides the emotional burden of punitive approaches, such regulatory approaches might cause students to receive a failing mark in a course, be suspended for an academic semester, or, in some cases, even be expelled from school. L2 writing scholars have recently called for the knowledge of experts to be disseminated (e.g., Pecorari, 2015; Petric 2015) so that it can be heard and, hopefully, considered by university communities, including disciplinary instructors and administrative staff. In response to this call and to fill the existing gap, I will investigate in this chapter, through my three theoretical lenses, the experiences and insights of five graduate course instructors (i.e., expert members) in the field of education—Janice, Joy, Ross, Nick, and Elizabeth—vis-à-vis the participating students’ source-based writing at both Master’s and doctoral levels. (Suzi, the sixth instructor, is not represented in this chapter; please see section 4.5 for an explanation.) These instructors were, in fact, published scholars and established faculty members and had guided graduate students for many years in their scholarly community. This chapter focuses on the factors that instructors, as the audience of their novices’ texts in their academic CoPs, identified as playing significant roles in students’ source-use practices as they (the students) strived to join expert activities through creating academic capital in their textual productions. 7.2 The Dialogue on the Text: What Matters Most to the Expert Audience? The five instructors were invited to speak to their written comments targeted at specific texts in participant students’ term papers (I will present and analyze their comments together with student writings), as well as discuss their overall ideas regarding students’   183 source-use practices. To aid in the understanding of how these expert members, as the audience of students’ texts, responded to their students’ text-based writing, Table 7.1 presents the total number of written comments instructors provided on students’ term papers, including the number of comments they provided that were directly related to students’ source-use practices. In my analysis, I will focus on comments related to source use only.  Table 7.1 Specifications of Instructor Comments on Student Final Term Papers Instructor Name Student Name Level of Student Words in Final Paper Total Comments in Draft Comments Related to Source Use Final Comment Included Janice Alice MEd 4,554 32 2 Yes Ross Wendy MEd 2,731 0 1 Yes Elizabeth Elena MA 4,353 24 7 No Joy Sally MA 2,373 20 3 Yes Essi PhD 5,352 51 5 Yes Linda PhD 4,937 35 9 Yes Nick Jeff PhD 4,942 22 3 Yes Note. The specifications of instructor comments on Arman’s paper by Suzi’s proxy, Peter, are not included here; see section 4.5 for an explanation.  It should be noted that Ross did comment on Wendy’s draft, but, rather than commenting on her final draft, he e-mailed her a paragraph-long comment in a separate Word file, in which he also showed appreciation for Wendy’s extensive search for sources. Also worth mentioning is that, although Elizabeth did not include a final comment like the rest of the instructors, she did provide a set of marking criteria, placed at the beginning of   184 Elena’s paper, where she entered marks, along with a brief explanation for points awarded or deducted. From an analysis of the text-based interviews with the instructors, where they discussed the comments they provided on the term papers of the participating students, four major themes emerged. Each theme was viewed by these instructors as a significant contributing factor to their graduate students’ source-use practices. In the following sections, each factor will be explicated, drawing on the comments of participating instructors during their interviews, as well as their comments on students’ term papers. I should clarify that not all instructors discussed all of these themes in detail; therefore, I present those that they emphasized and further elaborated on as the most important factors having a key role in their students’ source-based writing. 7.2.1 Mentorship Matters: Multi-Level Academic Mentoring; Possibilities and Constraints During the interviews, instructors commented on the kinds of support they offered to students (inside and outside of class) as students wrote their term paper over one academic semester. In particular, Joy, Janice, and Nick—as expert members of their CoPs—talked about the significance of mentorship, referring to their professional experiences. According to Joy, despite the desire of instructors to provide support to their students, the limited time frame and full enrollment of graduate courses often disssuade instructors from providing metalanguage (on syntactic levels), instructions, or individual support on source-integration practices. Further, Joy noted that time constraints as a result of large numbers of students in classes work against students and negatively impact the amount of instructor support offered to students. She shared her own experience:   185 In fact, this term, I was teaching another course and had 24 term papers in the other class to mark, so I was reading them both [papers from both classes] at the same time . . . so you have to figure out how much feedback you can give [on different aspects of the paper].  As shown in Table 7.1, Joy managed to, despite her time constraints, provide some comments relevant to her students’ source-use practices (i.e., three on Sally’s paper, five on Essi’s, and nine on Linda’s). For instance, she commented on Sally’s reference list with “Good references and use of APA,” on Essi’s reference list with “Excellent use of APA,” and on Linda’s with “For APA you need to have the titles of articles and books in lower case except for first words/proper nouns . . . Nice collection of studies—very relevant to your dissertation!” Moreover, through questions and confirmative statements on their texts, Joy encouraged her students to present their points of view and include their voices among those of the established authors. For example, when Linda described Stake’s definition of case study, Joy invited her to present her standpoint: Linda’s text: Stake’s (1995) description of a case study report as [sic] “a narrative account, a story, a chronological presentation, [or a] personalistic description” (p. 87). He states that it is possible to report case studies in this manner so that readers can contextualize the case better.  Joy’s comment on the text: Did you like it? Think it was good?   In another example, Joy confirmed Essi’s source selection as he discussed teachers’ familiarity with researchers in their classrooms: Essi’s text: Under the heading “collaborative action research” Kamberelis and de la Luna (1998) describe a research project where the teacher had ample experience with researchers from prior research in the teacher’s classroom. In contrast to Kamberelis and de la Luna’s methodology, the researchers who had previously done research with the teacher conducted quantitative, experimental studies.  Joy’s comment on the text: That’s a good example from our area (lang./lit./edu).    186 Joy’s (successes despite her) difficulties due to time constraints were contrasted by Janice’s situation. According to Janice, sometimes external factors, such as low registration, work to benefit students. In Janice’s case, due to low enrollment because of the late announcement of her course, her class size was quite small, and her student, Alice, enjoyed the opportunity to receive extensive support from Janice. As Janice explained, she invested in mentoring her students in the process of their term-paper writing and provided them with several rounds of comments at both language and content levels—presumably as a way of sharing her accredited capital with them. She added that, in a typical course with 30 students or more, she would not be able to offer such extensive comments on an entire draft; instead, she generally gave this level of attention only at the planning stage at the beginning of a course. She would generally meet with her students after they submitted their initial ideas to her. This particular semester, early in the course (i.e., during the first few weeks), she devoted some class time to brainstorming and discussing suitable topics for term papers with each of her students. She helped the students understand the kind of work expected from them by discussing related published articles. These published works acted as windows to existing textual dialogues among legitimized voices (i.e., scholars) in the field, which offered students glimpses into types of capital they could and should collect. Janice explained that students had spent some time choosing the right research questions and then did library searches for articles suitable for supporting the arguments in their papers. Regarding supporting Alice’s term-paper writing, Janice clarified:  Together, we did freewriting and brainstorming and talking through ideas and all kinds of things like that. We constituted the topic, and so we talked through it . . . and then looked for relevant readings and so on.    187 Such interactions were also evident in the types of comments Janice wrote on Alice’s final draft. Here is an example of two instances (both emphasized and commented on below): Alice’s text: In WPL article 8, the researcher indicates that in order to improve working performance, it is vital to improve interpersonal skills first. Researchers in WPL article 14 argues that when group level outcomes are desired, human resource specialists and managers need to consider how the acquired knowledge will be distributed among group members. [emphasis added by present researcher] In several papers, researchers ask for the support from companies and organizations to facilitate adult learning and provide friendly learning environment. The researchers argue that management level should give support to new employees’ training. However, the main discussions in these papers still focus on individual development. For example, the leadership style adopted by the team leader affects team-learning activities, the question about how to improve managers’ facilitating skills to inspire team learning (WPL, A2) and how to use appropriate tools and change their personal behaviors by offering training and coaching have been discussed (WPL, A 12). Likewise, the main point, WLP article 13 has been made, is that motivation and support from the organization are key factors for trainees transfer. The authors treat organizational support as the pre-conditions to improve trainees’ professional performance by saying “if organizations do not guarantee these two conditions...(P. 328) [emphasis added by present researcher]”   Janice’s comment on the first emphasized portion above: It might have been helpful to elaborate a [sic] just a bit—I’m not entirely clear how these articles support your point about the foregrounding of employees’ interests.  Janice’s comment on the second emphasized portion above: Hmmm… [sic] I wonder if this paragraph, which is very long, should have been divided into two, one focusing on how employees are foregrounded and the other elaborating on how this is true even in studies where the recommendations concern the company/organization.  Janice’s guidance of Alice through these comments seemed to cover both appropriate source selection and effective organization in her text; Alice appeared to need improvement in both areas. In part of Janice’s final comment, she provided a relevant suggestion to Alice to improve her English fluency: My main challenges as a reader stem from the fact that you clearly still struggle with fluent expression in English. While L2 acquisition is not my field of expertise (and was not the focus of our course), my sense is that improvement in this area will come over time, with practice and feedback . . . I’ve inserted some of the kind of line-by-  188 line feedback that might be useful to you in developing English fluency. I think it would be really helpful if you could find someone to sit down with you on a regular basis to go over these types of syntactic problems that (unfortunately) compromise the otherwise well-organized and thoughtful aspects of your work.  From the above comments, as well as the discussion I had with Janice during the interview session, it was evident that she devoted significant time and energy to support her students—here, in particular, Alice. Janice aimed to equip Alice with forms of capital that she needed in order to help her join core activities in her CoP and to embolden Alice to voice her ideas through source-based writing. During the interview, Janice volunteered to discuss Alice’s paper and her source-use practices in further detail, which led to over two hours of interviewing. The prior excerpt from Janice’s final comment is indicative of the lack of systematic and institutional support for L2 writers and the constraints course instructors face when expected to provide all of the required scaffolding in this regard. For larger classes, where teachers cannot afford the time to give detailed or comprehensive comments, Janice suggested that an expert editor or mentor should work with students to unpack their passages, asking them to clarify the exact messages they want to convey. Having access to such expert members would gradually socialize students into the expert activities of their CoPs by enabling them to collect acceptable forms of capital.   One commonality brought to the fore in the above-discussed conversations with Janice and Joy is the importance of scaffolding students’ learning as they familiarize themselves with the commonly practiced rules of source use in their field. To this end, Janice and Joy held individual meetings with students in the planning phase and had a conversation with each about the possible directions for their paper, sources they could refer to, and any concerns regarding how to use them—an effective way to facilitate students’ voicing of their views. Evidently, these experienced mentors did not consider knowing how to use sources as   189 a single and simple skill, learned once and for all—as the autonomous view of literacy holds. Rather, they considered source use as a social practice that required mentorship (i.e., a long-term commitment to the gradual dispensing of capital) in order to be performed properly. Learning how to use source texts properly is part of socialization into one’s academic community and an initiation into the norms and rules of one’s discourse community (Duff, 2010; Kobayashi, Zappa-Hollman, & Duff, 2017). This requires a significant amount of support from expert members in a field. For such learning to take place, instructors need to be aware of the need to empower students to voice their views by adequately supporting their learning and offering opportunities for meaningful discussion and practice, both inside and outside of class. There is also a need to explicitly teach students about the issues related to inappropriate use of sources. In addition to the benefit of ideas like the individual meetings held by Janice and Joy to address student concerns and questions, Nick, the instructor of Jeff, believed it would also be beneficial (in particular for first-year graduate students) to attend university-level writing workshops, if they are available at all. Nick clarified that he “wish[ed] [the university] had more services available [at program and institution levels] for students—for graduate students especially—aimed at scaffolding and apprenticing them into academic writing.” He wrapped up our discussion with the loaded statement that “we need much more.” Although he emphasized the importance of mentorship and the necessity of connecting students to sources of support, he was not satisfied with the status quo. Academics widely accept that providing mentorship plays a significant role in students’ academic success and facilitates their socialization—whether fully or partially—into relevant academic communities and networks of practice (Zappa-Hollman & Duff,   190 2015). Yet, students’ need for mentorship in the gaining and exercising of legitimate practices oftentimes goes unattended due to the numerous duties and responsibilities assigned to and undertaken by academics who are qualified to provide such mentorship. Although peers with a similar amount of cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1991) in terms of source-use knowledge are typically more available to offer support, instructors and those with greater access to valued forms of knowledge are better positioned to mentor newcomers to the field by showing them how to appropriately integrate others’ views with their own. Mentorship from instructors can take a variety of forms, from commenting on syntactic or lexical inaccuracies to advising students on their long-term academic and professional goals. For novice graduate students, mentorship—especially from course instructors, who often become de facto mentors upon students’ entrance into graduate programs—is highly beneficial and empowering. It provides students with forms of cultural capital that are valued and recognized in their relevant communities and networks of practice. As available scholarship illuminates (e.g., Fazel & Kowkabi, 2013), one form of academic-writing support entails instructors’ guidance on the incorporation of others’ words and ideas into one’s own text while avoiding inappropriate textual borrowing. As Nick commented, one major concern consistently heard in academia centres around the inadequate expert-member support available (in any given field), especially in the first and second semesters, when students have just joined a graduate program and they realize the difference between expectations in writing between undergraduate and graduate levels. At this phase, graduate students are viewed as emerging authors of research papers and must be proficient enough in the appropriate integration of sources. However, many graduate students at this stage also expect adequate support from their CoPs to learn the   191 “why”s and “how”s of source-based writing and the basics of writing with authority. Related to this discussion, the next section will present the viewpoints of graduate instructors regarding the role of students’ authorial identity in their source-based writing. 7.2.2 Helping Students Write with More Authority Previous studies in the field of applied linguistics have illustrated that recognizing students’ authorial roles in their writing and, thus, promoting their authorial identity helps in the process of integrating them into their target academic communities (e.g., Elander, Pittam, Lusher, Fox, & Payne, 2010; Kanno & Norton, 2003). As was found in this scholarship, during the interview discussions with participant instructors on source writing, they also emphasized the role of authorial identity in students’ successful textual production and appropriate textual-borrowing practices. For example, Joy commented on her expectation that students in graduate courses need to take a stance as they write from other sources and should be able to summarize what they read in their own style. She considered recognition and promotion of students’ handling of sources as contributing factors paramount to students’ authorial self-esteem and the subsequent development and establishment of their authorship. For instance, when it came to her L2 doctoral student, Essi, she respected his tendency toward the use of direct quotes in his term paper. Joy explained that, “He [Essi] had some quotes [in his term paper], and it is helpful to see what the original authors say at some points . . . personal preferences are involved in using quotes.” Giving authorial credit to her student—by approving Essi’s practice of using direct quotes—Joy recognized and promoted her student’s authorial identity. Reviewing her written comments on Essi’s paper, I found that, although she provided a lot of comments on Essi’s paper (i.e., 51 in-text comments for Essi’s 5,000-word paper), none of them was regulatory or concerned with the frequency of   192 his ADQs (i.e., 16 ADQs out of 95 total in-text citations, with a citation density of 17.7 citations per 1,000 words, as presented and discussed in Chapter 6). An example of Joy’s more general approval of Essi’s use of ADQs (not necessarily of the frequency of his ADQs) is as follows.  Here, Essi employed the use of a block quote to explain the problematic notion of collaboration.  (The portion about which Joy’s comment was written has been emphasized below.) Essi’s text: Snyder (1992) discusses teacher–researcher collaboration based on a study on the use of computers versus the use of pens for writing in a school in Australia. She refers to her research as employing a quasi-experimental research design, and does not quite fit with the description of AR or formative experiments, since there was little room for the teacher to adjust to changes that the intervention brought about, and this restriction had considerable implications:  [The teacher] found that the research design requirements imposed a structure on the organization of class time to which she was not accustomed and did not favor. The demands of the design not only placed a burden on the students, but also affected her teaching. The pressure of a program which was predetermined and mapped out limited her. She could not “just go off and make connections and build on them” (Interview transcript: November 1988). Furthermore, she felt that the tight program prevented her from getting to know the students in the way she did with other classes (Snyder, 1992, p. 204 [emphasis added by present researcher]).  Joy’s comment on the text: Good example [sic]  The above and other similar examples throughout Essi’s text highlight Joy’s supportive and pedagogical approach to the source-integration practices of her graduate student as an emerging scholar. Although such practices might not yet fit expert and expected practices of a CoP, instructors’ confirmatory comments can encourage students to take more control and authority over their texts.  Quite similarly, Nick mentioned several examples of Jeff’s quote use in his final paper. He explained his own interpretations of why he believed Jeff used as many quotes as   193 he did (i.e., 23 out of 44 in-text citations). Nick speculated that perhaps the terms introduced in the studies Jeff quoted were very specific or perhaps Jeff himself wanted to place emphasis on them; either reason seemed acceptable to Nick. Regarding the latter reason, Nick clarified that Jeff was displaying to his audience his use of the terms and his understanding that they were, in fact, contested terms in the field. “He would prefer to use quotes [to emphasize them], and that’s fine with me,” Nick confirmed.  Jeff’s text: This unproblematized conception of the interview . . . has made it “increasingly apparent in recent years that there is a profound inconsistency in how the interview has been and continues to be theorized” (pp. 128-129).  Nick’s comment on the text: In applied linguistics and education for sure.  In his written comments, Nick used “for sure” as a confirmation of the point Jeff discussed in his text. By affirming Jeff’s use of an ADQ, Nick also affirmed Jeff’s authorial choice to use a direct quote for his source integration. In the case of Janice’s experience with her Master’s student’s use of ADQs, she mentioned that, early in the term, she recognized that Alice had been accustomed to using what she perceived as too many quotes in her writing, and she decided to use this as a topic for class discussion later in the course. Janice viewed her observation of her student’s source use as an opportunity to scaffold her students’ understanding of academic source use in their CoP. Janice believed that novice academic writers might think the goal of writing papers was to showcase—to the course instructor—that they had done extensive reading (precisely the purpose that Sally had stated in Chapter 5). She believed that this could result in students missing many stages of the writing process since being an academic author is much more than merely acting as a knowledge reporter. According to Janice, most novice student writers think that, in a research paper, all they need to do is report what other authors have said;   194 however, the reality is that exploring others’ opinions is just the initial purpose of doing research. Students who simply re-present research they have read miss the goal of learning to present their authorial identity through their own ideas as authors of dialogic texts. As an informed member of one’s discourse community, an author should not only have adequate knowledge of (i.e., capital in) prior arguments in the field but should also be able to ponder questions that have yet to be settled and strive to present possible answers to them (i.e., continue to search for ways to add to their own and their CoP’s capital). Janice: I think it is important to place them [the students] in the position of knowledge maker . . . I tell them this is not about Noble-Prize-winning; it’s just about making a claim that you are producing something new—that you are adding to the body of existing knowledge—that you are not only familiar with that knowledge but also that you are contributing to it.  To be “rhetorically placed in the author’s position,” as Janice explained, is key to students being able to wear the author’s hat and produce text and academic papers. Drawing on Bourdieu’s (1991) notion of cultural capital, which suggests that learners invest in their learning, hoping to collect “symbolic and material resources” (p. 17) that empower them by providing more capital, I argue that, if students can relate a topic to their own experiences and interests, they will be more invested (Norton, 2010) in writing according to academic conventions, including conventions of source use in academic writing.  One way to connect students’ interests to their writing and thereby ease them into writing, as Ross, Wendy’s instructor, suggested, is to start a course by creating a space for them to be involved in some kind of creative writing and autobiographical narrative so that they practice freely showing and shaping their viewpoints in writing without feeling a need to hide behind others’ words. Creating such spaces at the beginning of courses liberates students from delimiting standards of academic writing and offers them an opportunity to   195 express their conceptions and voices while assuming the role of author. In fact, taking time to explain to novice writers the reality of what academia expects from their writing practices, as well as encouraging them to claim ownership of their texts, is a practice that teachers need to engage in in their classrooms. Although the above narratives do not excuse students from overly depending on original texts or inappropriately borrowing from them, they can provide opportunities to bear in mind students’ fragile and fledgling authorial identities as they strive to become legitimate members of their CoPs. Awareness of the ongoing process of socialization, identity (re)formation, and becoming—and all of their related issues and challenges (Zhang, 2013)—are the cornerstone of a meaningful teaching and learning praxis.  7.2.3 Preparatory Strategies for Appropriate Source Use  As discussed in Chapters 5 and 6, with regard to classroom and writing centre discussions around academic writing and strategies for appropriate source-use practices, students mostly encounter a set of prescriptive and rule-governed recommendations with “do”s and “don’t”s, along with a large number of so-called step-by-step guidebooks and websites focusing on teaching a set of standard steps for writing an academically acceptable piece. Oftentimes, these prescriptions also allocate a small section to the “how’s of avoiding plagiarism,” providing a list of regulatory recommendations and likely a reference to the APA style manual. What seems to be missing from many of these guides is a holistic view toward writing as a meaning-making process (Kamler & Thomson, 2014), closely connected to critical thinking and critical reading. In the conversations I had with the five instructors, the same topic was mentioned; the instructors talked about the importance of familiarizing students with the interconnections   196 between critical thinking, reading, and writing from sources. For instance, in my conversation with Janice, I noted several references to the significance of critical thinking and reading prior to academic source-based textual production. Drawing on Burke’s (1973) metaphor, and to encourage her students to actively think and read other papers, Janice invited her students to see themselves as hosting a scholarly gathering. First, as Janice described, a newly arrived person (here, a novice academic writer) needs to listen attentively to the discussions among other members to grasp the major themes, views, concordances, and discordances. Here is where critical thinking and reading should take place, Janice emphasized. As the conversation moves along, participants need to find appropriate gaps where they can add their own words and contribute to the discussion. Without carefully listening to what other people are talking about and analyzing their lines of thought, one cannot effectively contribute to the ongoing debates and arguments. Janice further explained: When you do a lit review as part of your paper, when you are citing other scholars, you are, in fact, entering a conversation. So, I tell them, “Think about yourself as a host at a party. You have invited all these different voices to your party, and your goal and your job in this paper—in this part of your paper—is to bring these voices together. I mean, you can think of yourself as a conductor, too, if you want to make these voices sing together . . . The other part of your job, the ultimate goal, is not just to have a nice party but to join [the discussions in] the party.”  Janice encouraged her students to employ strategies that expert writers use. For her, what scholars are doing when they produce texts is showcasing that they are active participants in a scholarly conversation on a certain topic. Thus, she first invited her students to read other authors’ work and to ask themselves, “Now that I have heard what all these people have said, and learned about their debates, what is it that they have not yet discussed, or what is in need of more investigation in their discussion?” According to Janice, after reading and thinking about their own point of view, which is undoubtedly a challenging move for novice student   197 writers, students will be ready and in a position to take on the academic writer role. Being in this space comes with mixed feelings because many of them will never have adopted this authorial role before.  As a preparatory exercise to help students analyze other authors’ positions, Janice asked students—when they were prepared to write their papers—to identify (indications of) an author’s position in a published work she had selected (i.e., an example of a credible source of capital), first with her help—to look through all of the rhetorical details—and then on their own. For  writing their term papers, Janice encouraged her students to check the notes they made at the reading stage as an effective strategy for generating ideas. Using Alice’s while-writing draft as an example, Janice showed me one of her own comments and explained that, if she finds an unclear phrase or sentence that does not effectively convey a student author’s point of view, she not only highlights it but also provides an example of how it should be written in order to represent the student author’s point of view along with others’. This model-offering technique is a tool to foster learning-to-write progress, according to Janice, and is, indeed, a way of sharing capital with the novitiate who are in search of guidance. As an example, here are the extensive comments Janice offered on a section of Alice’s unfinished draft:  Alice’s text: Since [emphasis added by present researcher] adult education (AE) and human resource development (HRD) have grown tremendously in the last quarter century, the relationship between AE and HRD has been discussed for years. Are they sharing the same discipline? Should HRD recognize itself as a branch under AE? Belzer, Bierema, Cseh, Ellinger, Ruona, and Watkins (2001) believe that HRD is under the umbrella of AE because they argue that “the HRD field is “marginalized” in adult education” [emphasis added by present researcher]. Watkin (2001) tried to bridge AE and HRD by using metaphor [sic] of a marriage, because he has seen the chasm widening as divorce between AE and HRD [sic]. He argued that HRD and AE should be connected, “for the sake of children”. Some scholars argue that AE and HRD have a long and tenuous relationship which saying [sic] they are separated but related to each other (Hatcher & Bowles, 2013). The central distinction, according to   198 many adult education scholars, is that their field’s goal is to extend the control of the adult learner over her or his own self-determination, whereas human resource development aims to keep control within the organization (Batchelder & Byxbe, 2002).   Janice’s comment on the first emphasized portion above: Ok, you’re getting there in this paragraph! Suggestions for making the “conversation” among these sources smoother follow. For starters, I don’t quite see a cause & effect relationship [signaled by “since”] [sic] between the 2 parts in your first sentence. How about something like this instead: “Both AE and HRD have grown … [sic] but the nature of their relationship remains contentious.”  Janice’s comment on the second emphasized portion above (abbreviations, formatting, and punctuation as originally written): How about “B, B, C, E, R & W’s claim that “the HRD field is ‘marginalized’ in adult education” positions HRD subordinately under the umbrella of AE. In contrast, Watkin’s marriage metaphor places the two fields on a more equal footing. Writing in 2001, Watkin sees an imminent divorce between AE and HRD, and he argues that the two should work to remain connected “for the sake of the children,” [add a phrase to clarify what he means by the children]. Hatcher and Bowles also place the fields side-by-side rather than hierarchically, but they do not ascribe Watkins’ intimacy to the long and tenuous relationship between HRD & AE; the fields may be related but they are separate. The central …” Do you see how the fragments in bold help “facilitate” the conversation? (in contrast to BBCER&W; more than the subordinate position ascribed by BBCER&W; also, like Watkin; but not Watkin’s intimacy)  The detailed textual analysis embedded in Janice’s comments helped Alice understand how adding one word (i.e., “intimacy”) would lead the audience to a completely different understanding of her text (as Alice confirmed during the third text-based interview presented in Chapter 6). Janice highlighted some sentence connectors that she employed to draw Alice’s attention to the differences in the way they both integrated and connected ideas from source texts. Such clarifications will hopefully support Alice’s future source-based writing practices by providing some scaffolding for her bourgeoning academic authoring abilities. Related to the above example is a conversation I had with Elizabeth regarding Elena’s source-use practices. As discussed in Chapter 5, although Elena seemed at ease with presenting her own point of view and, at the time of the first interview, confirmed that she   199 was not planning to solicit any help with her term-paper writing because she was confident she could accomplish the task on her own (probably due to the acceptable forms of capital she thought she had already acquired), it turned out that Elena missed an important aspect of writing—that is, according to Elizabeth, critical thinking. Since Elena had a strong standpoint regarding the topic of her paper, she neither read nor integrated sources that did not support her viewpoint. As a result, she failed to consider other sides of the argument (i.e., counterarguments) in the literature. Due to this particular shortcoming in Elena’s paper, Elizabeth deducted a few marks from Elena’s paper that otherwise presented compelling arguments. Elizabeth’s comment on Elena’s paper read: “You showed only one side of the argument. Look at my comments all along. Besides this, which is important, your analysis was good and you presented good arguments based on empirical research.” By encouraging students to think critically about their topics (e.g., by asking them to think about their topics from different perspectives) and read actively (e.g., by taking notes), instructors can help students to question what they read as they read, which, in turn, can lead to an ability to determine research gaps in one’s area, including concerns which have not yet been considered in the relevant scholarship. These strategies should be essential prerequisites for learning to write from source texts in scholarly contexts; novice writers should be encouraged to ask critical questions while reviewing literature for the purpose of writing term papers (e.g., Who is the author? What is the purpose/significance of the article? What major arguments are being discussed? How are they relevant to my research interest? What do I find missing in the paper? What are my thoughts on the findings? How do the findings support/dismiss other views in the rest of papers I have reviewed?). These sorts of questions can empower students to read and think critically as they prepare themselves to contribute—  200 even minimally and/or marginally—to their research field of interest through the avenue of term-paper writing; term papers could potentially be a starting point for more serious and significant scholarly contributions as participation in effective academic dialogues requires much practice. Of course, it is improbable and unrealistic to expect that teachers can cut the Gordian knot of critical thinking in source use by integrating these skills into students’ practices in such a short period of time (e.g., one academic term), but students who are at least aware of these skills and attempt to exercise them as much as possible can improve the quality of their thinking and writing in the long term (and, therefore, increase their textual capital). 7.2.4 Do Disciplinary and Language Backgrounds Matter?  L2 writing research has highlighted the significance of students’ disciplinary backgrounds and educational levels (mostly categorized as undergraduate versus graduate levels) in their source-use and textual-borrowing practices (e.g., Shi, 2016). Teachers’ awareness of the varied traditions of scholarly writing across disciplines is deemed essential to their understanding of the academic values and practices of students coming from a wide range of backgrounds. In some disciplinary traditions, it might be considered respectful to imitate the ideas of others, and students might even be expected to follow that practice as a valid means of collecting capital. For these students, coming into a new discipline with distinct academic standards is a matter of stepping into the uncertainty of what constitutes appropriate versus inappropriate source use brought about by a disconnect between their past and present academic expectations (i.e., acceptable forms of capital). Therefore, the fields and disciplines students come from determine whether their practice is considered appropriate or not.    201 Joy elaborated that instructors should not expect their students to be aware of and follow the same rules of citation and source use as they did in their previous fields. Simply being accepted into a graduate program does not mean students are equipped with all of the required tools for their new academic field and are capable of jumping through all of the hoops in their academic community with no difficulty, including joining ongoing scholarly textual dialogues that follow certain traditions and norms. According to Joy, “Many newcomers to this field [of education] . . . still use very different citation practices and ways of writing. They come from the humanities or from different fields, so we need to know that is where they start off.” Like Joy, Ross also acknowleges that graduate students—both L1 and L2—come to the field of literacy from an array of disciplines with distinct understandings of what is considered appropriate for source use. As he explains, “[S]tudents coming from other fields might have different orientations and understandings towards source use that represent the kinds of practices promoted in their institutions and by their instructors.” In response to the question about instructor thoughts regarding the probable role of language backgrounds in graduate students’ ways of approaching and using sources, all five instructors underscored that, in comparison to other factors, students’ first languages are not a significant factor in their inappropriate use of source texts. Based on their years of experience, mentoring both L1 and L2 students, they confirmed that student views and practices with regard to intertextuality depend more on their familiarity or unfamiliarity with the notion of inappropriate textual borrowing in their discipline than on the influence of their first language.  For instance,  Nick stated that students’ appropriate source-use practices are   202 more a matter of socialization into the traditions of a field in a given context than the language backgrounds students come from. He elaborated: I think it has more to do with, sort of, experience with a particular rhetorical tradition, and I think there is a particular rhetorical tradition that is preferred in western universities . . . for me, it is not about first- or second-language ability; it’s really about familiarity with citation practices and discourse conventions of North American academic communities in the social sciences, specifically in education, where we are following APA. So, for example, I know many second-language academic writers who are extremely skilled at textual borrowing and APA citation practices.  The instructors contended that language background cannot be counted as a major factor affecting students’ source-based writing. It is important, then, for educators to consider the interplay of a host of factors influencing students’ writing practices and their ways of extracting information from sources in order to construct their own claims and present their own authorial voices (as discussed in Liu, 2005, and Williams, 2007, among others). 7.3 Summary The data analyses in this chapter have highlighted the significant role of academic mentorship in novices’ socialization into the accepted and valued practices of their new CoPs—here, with regard to appropriate source use. Such academic mentorship can occur in the forms of inside- and outside-classroom discussions, e-mail exchanges with course instructors, or university-level writing workshops, as discussed by these graduate instructors. The participating graduate instructors (who also acted as graduate supervisors in their department) agreed on the pivotal role of teachers in helping students establish their authorial identities through teachers’ adoption of pedagogical approaches toward intertextual practices of novice academic writers. As Paré (2018) well argues, teachers act as “members of the scholarly community which students wish to join, and can offer great help as cultural brokers by making explicit the values, beliefs, attitudes, histories, and controversies that shape our   203 disciplines” (p. 227). Instructors have facilities to encourage students to recognize their voices as they write from sources (as explained by Joy, Janice, Nick, and Ross) and to equip students with practical preparatory strategies to gradually collect appropriate forms of textual capital in their respective disciplines (as specifically explicated by Janice and Elizabeth). The instructors did not always agree, however; they seemed to have disparate views toward student source-use practices. For instance, while Joy and Nick considered extensive use of ADQs an acceptable practice and, in fact, a sign of authorial identity in the making, Janice described it as citation overuse and a problematic barrier to the formation of student authorial identities, as in her student Alice’s case. As Joy, Janice, Nick, Ross, and Elizabeth clearly discussed, the ability to recognize individual students’ strengths, as well as their struggles, is of paramount importance, as they believed that the language of academic writing, including source-based writing in a given discipline, is a new language for all newcomers to academia; it needs to be learned through perseverance and persistence in relevant practices and over an extended period of time.  7.4 Conclusion The participating instructors’ pedagogically oriented approaches to their students’ source-based term-paper writing acknowledge student intertextual practices as constructive, transitional strategies students resort to as a natural part of learning how to write like experts. The instructors reasoned that inappropriate source use does not necessarily equate to a form of academic dishonesty but is, rather, a novice strategy for participating in the core activities of one’s CoP in attempts to gain relevant capital. From this perspective, source-based writing can best be taught as a process through which teachers monitor and mentor the writing development of their students and facilitate their learning of source incorporation into their   204 papers by moving toward the textual-borrowing practices that are considered as most appropriate in their CoPs.  Moreover, it can be concluded that existing tensions in the source-use realm are rooted not only in students’ inaccurate use of sources but also in both the discrepancy between institutional expectations and adequate support, and the inevitable inconsistency in instruction and expectations across educational contexts. As such, course instructors need to facilitate students’ socialization process by (a) encouraging students to recognize their authorial identities in their process of textual production; (b) equipping students with “think-to-learn,” “read-to-learn,” and “write-to-learn” strategies to help establish their authorial voices as they are gradually socialized into the appropriate written discourses of their academic CoPs; and (c) taking a realistic look at students’ struggles and challenges as they make efforts to collect relevant capital through familiarizing themselves with the legitimate scholarly writing practices of their disciplines.  Aligned with the arguments made by Tardy and Whittig (2017), I would also suggest that instructors could go one step further by not only understanding and supporting novice student writers in the context of their classrooms but also advocating for them beyond the walls of their classrooms and becoming voices for their unheard voices. In particular, more established instructors—for example, the ones participating in my study—are positioned well to speak up on behalf of students and to raise colleagues’ awareness about both the writing diversities novices oftentimes bring with them to academia and the possibilities for pedagogically acting upon them as informant participants, as discussed in this chapter.      205 Chapter 8: Conclusions and Implications [P]ractice of citations and references in the sphere of learning is not a trivial matter . . . it can be argued that these are in truth central to the [academic] incentive system and . . . do much to energize the advancement of knowledge (Merton & Sztompka, 1996).  8.1 Introduction In this chapter, I will begin by recapitulating the major findings of this research project (i.e., in section 8.2) to prepare the ground for elaborations on the theoretical and methodological contributions of this study to the field of second-language writing (i.e., in section 8.3). It will be followed by a discussion on the implications of these findings for policy and praxis (i.e., in section 8.4) on local and global scales. Subsequently, I will discuss the limitations of this study in section 8.5, and highlight possible directions for future research in the area of second-language academic writing and, in particular, on source use in academic writing in section 8.6. 8.2 Discussion of Major Findings This descriptive qualitative research project offered the opportunity to answer my research questions and sub-questions in order to better understand the process of source selection and source integration of eight local and international Master’s and doctoral students in education along with the instructors’ views on their practices. The findings of this project suggest that novice research writers draw on source texts and integrate them into their writing with specific motivations in order to reach certain purposes through their writing. Quite similar to the process of learning a new language, learning academic source-based writing occurs in stages as students move from the periphery to the centre of a given CoP. Such transition is typical of the first years of graduate school when novice writers are expected to write research papers by properly drawing on external sources. To collect   206 privileged forms of textual capital, the informants in this study needed to build on—and, at times, deconstruct and reconstruct—their habitus (Bourdieu, 1991; Calhoun, 2006). They had to exercise their source-based writing strategies to eventually overcome their challenges and find appropriate ways to make their often unheard and overshadowed voices known in dialogues among authors of original texts.  Overall, the findings from this study highlight that, while Master’s participants are more in transition between their student/learner selves and their author/writer selves, PhD students appear to be more at ease in taking on an emerging scholar/authorial role, and, therefore, demonstrate more confidence in voicing their views in their source-use practices. Doctoral students also seem to be more detail-oriented when it comes to reporting their source-use practices; for instance, in identifying types of source integration, Linda and Jeff distinguished between paraphrasing and summarizing strategies. Doctoral students are also more accurate with the use of field-specific terminologies (e.g., inappropriate textual borrowing vs. plagiarism) and have more versatility with their source integration purposes. As for motivations for including sources, while Master’s students have more extrinsic motivations (e.g., to present their extensive readings to their instructors and to show that what they say is important), doctoral students discuss more intrinsic motivations, which show their long-term investment in collecting relevant capital of the field (e.g., to get new information in the field and to learn from the course instructor); individual variations, of course, exist—as discussed in previous chapters—since students undergo the process of learning to write from sources at their own speed and with their own unique experiences, challenges and successes. This study also illustrates the significant role of social and pedagogical contexts to one’s socialization (Duff, 2010, 2012) into appropriate practices in   207 one’s relevant CoP. In particular, the role of pedagogy and support was highlighted in both students’ and instructors’ comments. 8.3 Theoretical and Methodological Contributions By weaving together the three conceptual frameworks of CoP, Forms of Capital, and Dialogism for the first time, this research study introduced a new window to investigate L2 writing issues from the prism offered by the interplay of these three guiding concepts. The CoP conceptual framework laid the groundwork for discussions on novice student writers’ struggles and strategies to join the activities of experts in the core of their CoPs, specifically in terms of drawing on external sources and effectively integrating them into their writing. Concepts of Forms of Capital and Dialogism provided frameworks for me to discuss appropriate source-based writing practices as valued forms of textual capital that students strive to collect in order to become qualified to join the dialogues among scholars through a text. Such an interconnectivity and interplay of concepts can enrich the analysis of any given sets of data by situating the data in a communal and interactional context.  In addition to a novel theoretical framework, this project also featured a qualitative approach capable of contributing unique insights to the field of L2 writing. The multiple sources of data used in this project offered an opportunity to reveal features that were not easily identifiable. Due to the complexities attached to the analysis of multiple sources of data, they are not often utilized, and research on the source-use practices of students—which, on its own, has been perceived as a complicated and indeterminate matter—has often been limited to the use of surveys or one-time text-based interviews only for data collection. This research project, along with a handful of similar studies (e.g., Abasi & Akbari, 2008; Li &   208 Casanave, 2012), provides much-needed insights into L2 writing research in the area of source use.  Indeed, by using multiple sources of data to investigate the source-use practices of graduate students at two academic levels, across two language backgrounds, and over multiple drafts, this dissertation shed light on not only the product but also the process of a complicated and largely hidden aspect of academic writing—writing from sources. Moreover, having two levels of analyses in this project—macro-analysis and micro-analysis of text-based interviews—afforded the opportunity to not only, at a macro level, disentangle students’ experiences, perspectives, expectations, hurdles, solutions, and available support in their source-based writing process, but also unveil, at a micro level, students’ motivations for source selection and their purposes for source integration and source modification, along with the types of source integration they employed.  Interviewing, as the main road to multiple realities (Stake, 1995), offered me a gateway to the perceptions and practices regarding source use of each of the Master’s and doctoral students. It helped in identifying similarities and differences in the practices of participants across multiple drafts, as well as among each other, in the Master’s and PhD levels. The 29 individual text-based interviews with students and their course instructors—along with the materials the interviews were based on (i.e., the while-writing and final term-paper drafts and related source texts, course materials and guidelines)—enriched this research experience in multiple dimensions. 8.4 Implications for Policy and Praxis The implications of this research project for policy and praxis are numerous. Practitioners in and beyond the classroom—including course instructors, supervisors,   209 graduate advisors, peer advisors, and writing tutors—to policy-makers at departmental, faculty, and university levels can relate their experiences with the topic of this dissertation in one way or another.  8.4.1 Course Instructors As all of the instructors in this study attested, it would be more meaningful for teachers to (as far as possible) put their effort into support and inspiration of students toward authorship rather than merely emphasizing a set of rules to be followed and distributing warnings on source misuse in their course outlines. This personalized approach to source-use socialization would be more effective than more general academic-writing supports in a given university since course instructors, as the readers of the products of students’ source-based writing, have insider views of students’ source-use practices and their strengths and struggles in this regard; they can, therefore, provide more individualized feedback regarding ways their students can improve in their source use (more so, say, than a stand-alone academic-writing centre). An example of such formative support would be the kind of feedback Janice provided to Alice across her drafts (as discussed in Chapters 5 and 7). Due to Janice’s availability, she was able to read multiple working drafts of Alice’s work and give informed comments in her subsequent rounds of feedback. Such formative comments were deemed effective by Alice at raising her awareness of the expectations of the expert members in her new field and paved the path to the further creation and collection of appropriate forms of capital in Alice’s source-based writing practices. Having access to expert members’ formative support as student writers learn to make strategic source-use decisions and develop their source-based writing practices could be extremely beneficial to students’ progress.    210 In addition, teachers (especially those who are also scholars in their respective fields, like the participants in this study) can play a fundamental role in students’ learning of appropriate source-use practices by designing activities geared toward enhancing critical thinking and critical reading ability in their research areas (like what Ross did through engaging his students with autobiographical narratives), and by incorporating exercises into classroom activities that strengthen the skills necessary for appropriate source-use practices (e.g., summarizing, paraphrasing, and quoting skills, perhaps, using students’ own examples or exemplars from previous students) to the extent that time, skill, and resources permit. By doing so, they can make students aware of the skills involved in the research process, as the inappropriate use of sources is oftentimes the consequence of not knowing how to find the right sources and how to cite them properly. Of course, it should be noted that, since instructors’ metacognitive skills in addressing the source-use issues of their students might vary, they may not be equally qualified to offer relevant support. Yet, as Li and Hu (2018) argue, there are a number of general direct and indirect supportive changes all instructors can easily implement into their classrooms, such as “building flexibility into the assignment requirements” (pp. 8-9), as also discussed and implemented by Sally’s, Wendy’s, and Jeff’s instructors—Joy, Ross and Nick, respectively.  The frustration novice writers experience can be replaced with satisfaction by engaging them in opportunities to practice writing and by allotting times for brief discussions about their source-based writing practices and challenges in research writing (as Janice did). Providing access to underlying influences of source-use engagement through formal and informal instruction and support could produce promising outcomes evident in students’ performance in their source-use practices. When students feel engaged and inspired by the   211 support they receive from expert members, their resilience will increase, and they will have a smoother writing experience—a win-win situation for both instructors and students, expert members and newcomers, alike, with the result being a thriving scholarly CoP where both expert members and newcomers have the opportunity to voice their views and join the scholarly dialogue through source-based writing.  Lastly, as respected members of their CoPs, course instructors—who, at graduate levels, are oftentimes scholars in their fields, as the participants in this study were—can act as advocates for new community members (i.e., graduate students). They can take advantage of and create opportunities to discuss with other veteran members of the community (e.g., colleagues from other departments and faculties, administrators at departmental and university levels)—who might be less familiar with student writers’ diversities and approaches to source-based writing—possible pedagogical approaches to students’ inappropriate source-use practices. 8.4.2 Policy-Makers It is understandable to see students’ disengagement with sources when they perceive a lack of institutional support—as suggested by Jeff’s instructor (Nick) during the interview. The paucity of support at the institutional level can be easily translated to the lack of instructional support (i.e., support available to students in classroom and through other support centres such as writing centres). Showing attention to students’ needs, questions, and expectations, such as by increasing the visibility and approachability of support systems across campus, can go far in supporting students’ progress with source-based writing—as mentioned by Sally, Wendy, and Linda.    212 In terms of visibility, it is crucial that students know where to go to get support with their writing when need be. This is where the role of policy-makers becomes more central and crucial in terms of creating and maintaining support systems across university campuses. For instance, forming writing support circles/clusters at the faculty and departmental levels and connecting newly-accepted students to them by providing information about them in student welcome letters can be a helpful first step. Also, as Janice recommended to Alice, an academic-writing partnership or mentorship program within a department or faculty could greatly strengthen students’ term-paper writing and source-use practices. Writing-support systems also need to be approachable in terms of their understandings of students’ source (mis)use. Unfortunately, many universities treat inappropriate textual borrowing legalistically (as discussed by Alice) and, oftentimes, ethnocentrically (Sutherland-Smith, 2005). Such perspectives may necessarily be reflected in the pedagogical approaches of instructors (e.g., through emphasis on academic “misconduct” and “dishonesty” in their course outlines or when interpreting student actions). However, it is crucial to consider diverse perceptions of the authorship, ownership, and use of texts in academic writing among students from various backgrounds and at different stages of learning. What may be considered inappropriate textual borrowing may be attributed to differences that are disciplinary, authorial, and/or socializational (i.e., mistakes or errors committed as part of the learning process as a student adjusts to new expectations and [interpretations of] concepts within a new CoP) as mentioned by Joy and Ross. As such, students need to be assured that their probable source misuses will not automatically be interpreted as unethical and illegal (i.e., as plagiarism).  Awareness of these individual   213 differences in appropriate source use can be raised in university writing-support systems to improve their approachability to students of diverse backgrounds. As a parting recommendation for policy-makers, it would be meaningful to create spaces where advocacy for students’ source-use challenges can take place and viable solutions can be proposed, with policy-makers and capital holders contributing to discussions regarding the execution of those solutions. For instance, departmental/faculty authorities can form and support conversation circles, workshops, information sessions, and one-on-one conferences with volunteer faculty members attending to provide spaces to listen to students’ needs and offer them available resources and support. This can lead to improvements in the status quo, as well as to designs for more efficient and effective action plans in the future. Drilling down and focusing on these important matters needs to be as important to policy-makers at the macro level as they are to practitioners at the micro level. In addition, the role of the digital epoch and the widespread availability of the Internet to students as a resource for information should be considered in policy updates (Li, 2012; Pennycook, 2016). Such considerations are crucial for policy formation in higher-education institutions including the one that was the site of the current research project.  Although the present study was conducted in a North American university, with the writing of source-based papers as a practice typically expected from graduate students, its findings can be—at least, partially—transferable to programs and higher education institutions in other contexts. Moreover, while this study provides direct recommendations for instructional staff at universities, it also has implications for educational policy-makers and authorities as regards high-stakes decisions made about incidences of student source misuse.   214 8.5 Limitations of the Study Despite the many positive aspects and expected significance of this project, I am aware of its limitations. The first limitation concerns the fact that I collected data in one discipline only (education), therefore, this study does not offer the opportunity to compare the source-use practices of students across disciplines. However, collecting and analyzing data from the discipline that I am quite familiar with, provided the opportunity of a better understanding of the topics students wrote their term papers on, and as a result, a more accurate analyses of the written and oral data collected for this project. Moreover, since this study relies on students’ oral accounts of their own source-use practices, any possible cases of improperly cited words which were not reported by the students have not been identified. Finally, I find important to acknowledge that the topic of my research project (i.e., focusing on source-use practices in student writing) might have influenced participating students’ source-base writing practices and their instructors’ comments on student final papers, in certain ways (i.e., reactivity, or the Hawthorne effect). 8.6 Future Research Directions I believe this research project has offered a valuable vantage point from which to gain a multi-dimensional picture of the perspectives and practices of graduate students in the field of education with respect to source-based writing processes. Despite recent studies on student writers’ source use, there is much to be revealed about the learning processes involved in novice student writers’ acquisition of academic source-based writing skills, and factors contributing to variation in their self-representation through writing. As Foucault (1980) reasonably argues, the work of an intellectual is to bring into question assumptions   215 and things taken for granted; to shake habits, ways of acting and thinking; and to dispel the familiarity of the accepted. With Foucault’s argument in mind as one of the inspirations for the formation and completion of the current study, I suggest there are still multiple unexplored pathways to the heart of source use that can be explored only through diving deeper into source-based texts and source-use practices. Despite available scholarship, more studies are required to fill the current gap in second-language education regarding perceptions toward appropriate and inappropriate source-use practices in novice students; studies in this area would advance the existing knowledge about students’ writing efforts and offer pedagogical remedies. Possible venues for further research endeavours in this area include: investigations into approaches of international student writers to source-based writing across genres (e.g., writing assessments, course assignments, journal articles) and comparisons to their local peers; investigations into approaches of L1 and L2 novice student writers to source-based writing across disciplines (delving into both strengths and challenges of L1 and L2 students); investigations into research writing across academic levels (e.g., undergraduates vs. graduates, Master’s students vs. doctoral students, graduates vs. faculty members); investigations into research writing in local and international contexts; explorations into expert academic writers’ successful citation practices and patterns and factors contributing to their success; examinations of issues related to the textual-borrowing practices of students in the technological epoch; proposals for socio-pedagogical approaches to second-language writing practices of student writers (as this current study has strived to accomplish); and introductions to possibilities for advocacy for novice student writers across academic contexts, as suggested in Chapter 7. Quests for answers to these and similar inquiries would   216 help in the promotion of pedagogy-oriented and learner-centred approaches toward L1 and L2 students’ citation practices in academic writing.  The efficacy of these approaches would arise from their focus on supportive and situated (as opposed to legalistic and punitive) responses to student efforts as they strive to learn about source use in their writing. I conclude my research project hoping that the socio-pedagogical approach of this study promotes further studies in the domain of academic writing that can investigate and design institutional and instructional action plans to provide practical assistance to novice student writers. These apprentice scholars are situated in the site of struggle within their academic CoPs and need new forms of capital to participate in and contribute to the ever-expanding dialogue within their fields.      217 References Abasi, A. R., & Akbari, N. (2008). Are we encouraging patchwriting? Reconsidering the role of the pedagogical context in ESL student writers’ transgressive intertextuality. English for Specific Purposes, 27(3), 267–284.  Abasi, A. R., Akbari, N., & Graves, B. (2006). Discourse appropriation, construction of identities and the complex issue of plagiarism: ESL students writing in graduate school. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 102–117.  Anderson, T. (2015). Seeking internationalization: The state of Canadian higher     education. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 45(3), 166-187.  Angélil-Carter, S. (2000). Stolen language? Plagiarism in writing. Harlow, England: Longman.  Ardichvilli, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2003). Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge sharing in communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(1), 64–77.  Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.  Bakhtin, M. M., Emerson, C., & Holquist, M. (Eds.). (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (V. W. McGee, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. (Original work published 1979)  Bartholomae, D. (1985). Inventing the university. In M. Rose (Ed.), When a writer can’t write: Studies in writer’s block and other composing-process problems (pp. 134–65). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.  Barton, D., Hamilton, M., & Ivanic R. (Eds.) (2000). Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context. London, England: Routledge.  Belcher, D. (1994). The apprenticeship approach to advanced academic literacy: Graduate students and their mentors. English for Specific Purposes, 13(1), 23–34.    Berti, J. (2009). Copyright infringement and protection in the internet age. IT Professional, 11(6), 42–45.  Biggs, J. (1991). Approaches to learning in secondary and tertiary students in Hong Kong: Some comparative studies. Educational Research Journal, 6, 27–39.    Blanton, W. E., Medina, A., & Pilonieta, P. (2009). Community of practice. In P. F. Eugene & A. B. Provenzo (Eds.), Encyclopedia of the social and cultural foundations of education (pp. 151–157). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.    218  Borg, E. (2000). Citation practices in academic writing. In P. Thompson (Ed.), Patterns and perspectives: Insights into EAP writing practice (pp. 26–44). Reading, England: Centre for Applied Language Studies.  Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Westport, CT: Greenwood.  Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  Calhoun, C. (2006). Pierre Bourdieu and social transformation: Lessons from Algeria. Development and Change, 37(6), 1403–1415.   Canagarajah, A. S. (2003). A somewhat legitimate and very peripheral participation. In C. P. Casanave & S. Vandrick (Eds.), Writing for scholarly publication: Behind the scenes in language education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  Campbell, C. (1990). Writing with others’ words: Using background reading text in academic compositions. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 211–230). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.  Casanave, C. P. (2008). Learning participatory practices in graduate school: Some perspective-taking by a mainstream educator. In C. P. Casanave & X. Li (Eds.), Learning the literacy practices of graduate school: Insiders’ reflections on academic enculturation (pp. 14–31). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.  Casanave, C. P. (2013). Controversies in second language writing: Dilemmas and decisions in research and instruction. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.   Chandrasoma, R., Thompson, C., & Pennycook, A. (2004). Beyond plagiarism: Transgressive and nontransgressive intertextuality. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 3(3), 171–194.  Christenbury, L. (2009). It’s not as simple as it seems: Doing honest academic work in an age of point and click. Journal of the American Association of School Librarians, 37(3), 16–23.  Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2014). Thematic analysis. In T. Teo (Ed.), Encyclopedia of critical psychology (pp. 1947-1952). New York, NY: Springer.  Colvin, B. B. (2007). Another look at plagiarism in the digital age: Is it time to turn in my badge? Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 35(2), 149–158.    219 Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (1999). Doing qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.  Cronon, W. (2006). Getting ready to do history. In C. M. Golde & G. E. Walker (Eds.), Envisioning the future of doctoral education: Preparing stewards of the discipline. Carnegie essays on the doctorate (pp. 327–349). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.  Currie, P. (1998). Staying out of trouble: Apparent plagiarism and academic survival. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 1–18.  Davis, P. M., & Cohen, S. A. (2001). The effect of the web on undergraduate citation behavior 1996–1999. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(4), 309–314.  Davis, M. (2013). The development of source use by international postgraduate students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(2), 125–135.  Davis, M., & Morley, J. (2015). Phrasal intertextuality: The responses of academics from different disciplines to students’ re-use of phrases. Journal of Second Language Writing, 28, 20–35.  Deckert, G. D. (1993). Perspectives on plagiarism from ESL students in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2(2), 131–148.  Dinitz, S., & Harrington, S. (2014). The role of disciplinary expertise in shaping writing tutorials. Writing Center Journal, 33(2), 73–98.  Dong, Y. R. (1996). Learning how to use citations for knowledge transformation: Non-native doctoral students’ dissertation writing in science. Research in the Teaching of English, 30(4), 428–457.  Duff, P. (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  Duff, P. (2008). Language socialization, participation and identity: Ethnographic approaches.   In M. Martin-Jones, Mejia & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of   language and education, Vol. 3: Discourse and education (pp. 107-119). New York:   Springer.  Duff, P. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 169–192.   Duff, P. (2012). Second language socialization. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin  (Eds.), Handbook of language socialization (pp. 564-586). Malden, MA: Wiley-  Blackwell.    220 Elander, J., Pittam, G., Lusher, J., Fox, P., & Payne, N. (2010). Evaluation of an intervention to help students avoid unintentional plagiarism by improving their authorial identity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(2), 157–171.  Eugene, P. F. & Provenzo, A. B. (Eds.) (2009). Encyclopedia of the social and cultural foundations of education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.   Evans, F. B., & Youmans, M. (2000). ESL writers discuss plagiarism: The social construction of ideologies. Journal of Education, 182(3), 49–65.  Farmer, F. (Ed.). (1998). Landmark essays on Bakhtin, rhetoric, and writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  Fazel, I., & Kowkabi, N. (2014). Students’ source misuse in language classrooms: Sharing experiences. TESL Canada Journal, 31(1), 86.  Ferragina, E. (2010). Social capital and equality: Rethinking social capital in relation with income inequalities. The Tocqueville Review, 16(1), 73–98.  Flowerdew, J. (2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the nonnative-English-speaking scholars. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 127–150.  Flowerdew, J., & Li, Y. (2007). Language re-use among Chinese apprentice scientists writing for publication. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 440–465.  Foucault, M., & Gordon, C. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. Brighton, England: Harvester Press.  Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London, England: Longman.  Gu, Q., & Brooks, J. (2008). Beyond the accusation of plagiarism. System, 36(3), 337–352. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications. Hall, J. K., Vitanova, G., & Marchenkova, L. (Eds.) (2005). Dialogue with Bakhtin on second and foreign language learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  Harwood, N. (2009). An interview-based study of the functions of citations in academic writing across two disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(3), 497–518.  Harwood, N., & Petrić, B. (2011). Performance in the citing behavior of two student writers. Written Communication, 29(1), 55–103.   221  Hirvela, A., & Du, Q. (2013). “Why am I paraphrasing?”: Undergraduate ESL writers’ engagement with source-based academic writing and reading. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(2), 87–98.  Howard, R. M. (1992). A Plagiarism Pentimento. Journal of Teaching Writing, 11(2), 233–245.  Howard, R. M. (1995). Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death penalty. College English, 57(7), 788–806.  Howard, R. M., & Davies, L. J. (2009). Plagiarism in the Internet age. Journal of Educational Leadership, 66(6), 64–67.  Hu, G., & Lei, J. (2012). Investigating Chinese university students’ knowledge of and attitudes toward plagiarism from an integrated perspective. Language Learning, 62(3), 813–850.  Hu, G., & Wang, G. (2014). Disciplinary and ethnolinguistic influences on citation in research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14(0), 14–28.  Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091–1112.  Hyland, K. (2013). Disciplinary discourse: Social interactions in academic writing. London, England: Longman. (Original work published 2000)  Hyland, K. (2016). Methods and methodologies in second language writing research. System, 59, 116–125.  Hyland, T. A. (2009). Drawing a line in the sand: Identifying the borderzone between self and other in EL1 and EL2 citation practices. Assessing Writing, 14(1), 62–74.  Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.  Jalilfard, A. (2012). Academic attribution: Citation analysis in master’s theses and research articles in applied linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 23–41.  Johns, A., & Mayes, P. (1990). An analysis of summary protocols of university ESL students. Applied Linguistics, 11(3), 253–271.  Kanno, Y., & Norton, B. (2003). Imagined communities and educational possibilities: Introduction. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 2(4), 241–249.   222  Kearney, R. (1988). The wake of imagination: Towards a postmodern culture. London, England: Century Hutchinson.  Keck, C. (2006). The use of paraphrase in summary writing: A comparison of L1 and L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(4), 261–278.  Keck, C. (2010). How do university students attempt to avoid plagiarism? A grammatical analysis of undergraduate paraphrasing strategies. Writing & Pedagogy, 2(2), 193–222.  Keck, C. (2014). Copying, paraphrasing, and academic writing development: A re-examination of L1 and L2 summarization practices. Journal of Second Language Writing, 25, 4–22.  Kiedaisch, J., & Dinitz, S. (1993). “Look back and say ‘so what’”: The limitations of the generalist tutor. The Writing Center Journal, 14(1), 63–74.  Kobayashi, M., Zappa-Hollman, S., & Duff, P. (2017). Academic discourse socialization. In  P. Duff & S. May (Eds.), Language socialization: Vol. 8, Encyclopedia of language  and education (3rd ed.) (pp. 239-254). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International. Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 120-  124,   Kubota, R. (2017). Studying up, down, or across?: Selecting who to research. In J. McKinley & H. Rose (Eds.), Doing research in applied linguistics: Realities, dilemmas, and solutions (pp. 17–26). Abingdon, England: Routledge.  Kubota, R., & Lehner, A. (2004). Toward critical contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 7-27.  Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.  Lee, J. J., Hitchcock, C., & Casal, J. E. (2018). Citation practices of L2 university students in first-year writing: Form, function, and stance. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33, 1–11.  Lee, S. H. (2010). Attribution in high- and low-graded persuasive essays by tertiary students. Functions of Language, 17(2), 181–206.  Lensmire, T. J., & Beals, D. E. (1994). Appropriating others’ words: Traces of literature and peer culture in a third-grader’s writing. Language in Society, 23(3), 411–426.   223  Li, X. M. (1996). “Good writing” in cross-cultural context. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.  Li, Y. (2007). Apprentice scholarly writing in a community of practice: An “intraview” of an NNES graduate student writing a research article. TESOL Quarterly, 41(1), 55–79.  Li, Y. (2011). Text-based plagiarism in scientific writing: What Chinese supervisors think about copying and how to reduce it in students’ writing. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(2), 569–583.  Li, Y. (2012). Studying the issue of plagiarism at a university in Hong Kong: An exploration of the teaching and learning processes. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 22–32.  Li, Y. (2013). Academic staff’s perspectives upon student plagiarism: A case study at a university in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 35(1), 14–26.    Li, Y. (2015). ‘Standing on the shoulders of giants’: Recontextualization in writing from sources. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(5), 1297–1314.  Li, Y., & Casanave, C. P. (2012). Two first-year students’ strategies for writing from sources: Patchwriting or plagiarism? Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(2), 165–180.  Li, Y., & Hu, G. (2018). Supporting students’ assignment writing: What lecturers do in a master of education programme. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(1), 1–13.  Liu, D. (2005). Plagiarism in ESOL students: Is cultural conditioning truly the major culprit? ELT Journal, 59(3), 234–241.  Macdonald, R., & Carroll, J. (2006). Plagiarism—A complex issue requiring a holistic institutional approach. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(2), 233–245.  Mackiewicz, J. (2004). The effects of tutor expertise in engineering writing: A linguistic analysis of writing tutors’ comments. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 47(4), 316–328.  Manchón, R. M., & Matsuda, P. K. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of second and foreign language writing. Boston, MA: Walter de Gruyter.  Mansourizadeh, K., & Ahmad, U. K. (2011). Citation practices among non-native expert and novice scientific writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(3), 152–161.    224 Matsuda, P. K. (2012). Let’s face it: Language issues and the writing program administrator. WPA: Writing Program Administration, 36(1), 141–163.  Matsuda, P. K. (2015). Identity in written discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 140–159.  McCabe, D., & Katz, D. (2009). Curbing cheating. Education Digest, 75(1), 16–19.  Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.  Merton, R. K., & Sztompka, P. (1996). On social structure and science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.  Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.  Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.  Moody, J. (2007). Plagiarism or intertextuality?: Approaches to teaching EFL academic writing. The Asian EFL Journal, 9(2), 195–210.  Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic communities. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 573–603.  Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 409–429.  Norton, B. (2001). Non-participation, imagined communities and the language classroom. In M. P. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 159–171). Essex, England: Pearson Education.  Ouellette, M. A. (2008). Weaving strands of writer identity: Self as author and the NNES “plagiarist.” Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 255–273.  Paré, A. (2018). Thinking rhetorically: A pragmatic approach to texts. In S. Carter & D. Laurs (Eds.), Developing research writing: A handbook for supervisors and advisors (pp. 224–230). London, England: Routledge.  Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second- language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(4), 317–345.  Pecorari, D. (2006). Visible and occluded citation features in postgraduate second-language writing. English for Specific Purposes, 25(1), 4–29.    225 Pecorari, D. (2013). Teaching to avoid plagiarism: How to promote good source use. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.  Pecorari, D., & Shaw, P. (2012). Types of student intertextuality and faculty attitudes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(2), 149–164.  Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others’ words: Text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 201–230.  Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  Pennycook, A. (2016). Reflecting on borrowed words. TESOL Quarterly, 50(2), 480–482.  Petraglia, J. (Ed.). (1995). Reconceiving writing, rethinking writing instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  Petrić, B. (2007). Rhetorical functions of citations in high- and low-rated master’s theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(3), 238–253.  Petrić, B. (2012). Legitimate textual borrowing: Direct quotation in L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(2), 102–117.  Petrić, B., & Harwood, N. (2013). Task requirements, task representation, and self-reported citation functions: An exploratory study of a successful L2 student’s writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(2), 110–124.  Phan, L. H. (2006). Plagiarism and overseas students: Stereotypes again? ELT Journal, 60(1), 76–78.  Pillow, W. (2003). Confession, catharsis, or cure? rethinking the uses of reflexivity as  methodological power in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(2), 175-196. doi:10.1080/0951839032000060635  Polio, C., & Shi, L. (2012). Perceptions and beliefs about textual appropriation and source use in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(2), 95–101.  Purcell-Gates, V. (2007). Cultural practices of literacy: Case studies of language, literacy, social practice and power. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  Radia, P., & Stapleton, P. (2008). Unconventional internet genres and their impact on second language undergraduate students’ writing process. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(1), 9–17.     226 Riazi, M., Shi, L., & Haggerty, J. (2018). Analysis of the empirical research in the Journal of Second Language Writing at its 25th year (1992–2016). Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 41–54.  Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics. Harlow, England: Longman.   Rinnert, C., & Kobayashi, H. (2005). Borrowing words and ideas: Insights from Japanese L1 writers. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 15(1), 31–56.  Roig, M. (1999). When college students’ attempts at paraphrasing become instances of potential plagiarism. Psychological Reports, 84(3), 973–982.   Roig, M. (2001). Plagiarism and paraphrasing criteria of college and university professors. Ethics and Behavior, 11(3), 307–323.  Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.  Samraj, B. (2013). Form and function of citations in discussion sections of master’s theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(4), 299–310.  Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approached to discourse: Language as social interaction. Malden, MA: Blackwell.  Scollon, R. (1995). Plagiarism and ideology: Identity in intercultural discourse. Language in Society, 24(1), 1–28.  Sedhu, D., Lee, M. Y., & Choy, S. C. (2013). The influence of teaching strategies on students’ paraphrasing strategies: A case study. International Journal of Independent Research and Studies, 2(3), 130–137.  Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63-75.             Shi, L. (2004). Textual borrowing in second language writing. Written Communication, 21(2), 171–200.  Shi, L. (2006). Cultural backgrounds and textual appropriation. Language Awareness, 15(4), 264–282.  Shi, L. (2010). Textual appropriation and citing behaviours of university under-graduates. Applied Linguistics, 31(1), 1–24. amn045     227 Shi, L. (2011). Common knowledge, learning and citation practices in university writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 45(3), 308–334.  Shi, L. (2012a). Rewriting and paraphrasing source texts in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(2), 134–148.  Shi, L.