Findings

Signature pedagogical practices

Surface structure of the seminars and PhD supervision

The research seminars form part of routine activities of a high profile research centre，and is held weekly and often in conjunction with other institutes and associations.The majority of the participants are MPhil/PhD students and staff of the institutes；however，several visiting scholars and visiting PhD students also regularly attend the seminar throughout the year.Though it is not mandatory officially，the doctoral students attend it regularly，especially full-time students，as the attendance is considered a sign of sincerity toward research.The typical seminar is two hours in length and is chaired either by a staff member or a senior PhD student；one or two participants make presentations.About 40%～50% of the time allotted to each presenter is used for presentation while the rest is reserved for a discussion moderated by the chair.In most cases，presenters discuss their current work and receive feedback for use in their publications，conference presentations or thesis writing.Presenters are also invited from other institutes both within and outside the UK in order to keep group members up to date with recent developments in the field.

The weekly research seminar consists of four different phases：housekeeping，presentation，discussion and round-up.The pedagogy of the seminar is manifested mostly in the third phase，discussion.According to our analysis，contributions from the audience in this phase consist of three types，clarification questions，observationsand challenges .Through clarification questions，the commenter asks about the aspects that were not presented clearly during the presentation，such as the use of a term，or methodological details.The commenter also makes observations，or general remarks on the ideas which the presentation has stimulated，such as a relevant research framework，a publication，or a similar or contrastive case in another context.It is assumed that the information may prove useful for the presenter.Finally，the commenter may challenge the knowledge claim made by the presenter，by pointing out the parts that sound illogical，unexpected，or incoherent.This leads the presenter to self-scrutinise his or her own analysis，assumptions or interpretation of the data，which contributes to increasing the rigour of their research.Comments of this nature are often picked up by other members until the issue is settled.Notably，the issues unresolved or that were perceived as important may be picked up in another presentation and，in such a case，the commenter often reminds the audience of the previous discussion.

PhD supervision is typically conducted by two supervisors.The student and the supervisors meet every three weeks on average，but depending on the stage of the student’s progress，the urgency of some tasks，and styles of the participants，the schedule may vary.For each meeting，the PhD student is expected to submit a piece of writing，or PowerPoint slides if preparing for a presentation.Also，the students should write a report after these meetings，covering the main issues discussed，decisions made，and the next assignment，and the report is signed by all parties and submitted to the department.In addition to the supervisory meeting，a doctoral student has to attend mandatory input sessions which are provided by the department，the faculty and the university，most of which occur in the first year，but continue until the student is writing up the thesis.

Deep and implicit structure of the seminar and PhD supervision

The leading members of the research group regularly attend the seminar series.This shows that they consider the seminars to be seriously valuable.Reflecting this validation，Felix refers to the seminars using phrases such as “the business”，“a core” and “a ritual centre of the collegial academic practice.” As Felix notes，there are two major functions of the seminar，assistance with knowledge generation and continuation of the research culture.In assisting knowledge generation，members will cross-examine the knowledge claims against the discipline’s collective cognition.As observed by Felix：

[The seminar is] communion in argument and dialogue.Fundamental to academic life，academic work.It so happens that the particular types of presentation and questions emerging in a particular form are going to be coming from the discipline [of Applied Linguistics].

The discourse types and patterns induct the students into the knowledge canon of the discipline，and promote rigorous thinking and clear communication.The style of interaction is both supportive（demonstrating an inclusive attitude towards new members of the academic discipline）and critical（indicating a desire to maintain certain standards）.In the seminars，the participants collectively seek to understand the use of frameworks available in the discipline，and examine whether their work is intelligible to a larger audience who may not be familiar with the focus of one’s own research，though in the same discipline.Reflecting the disciplinary tradition，the participants often have a lengthy discussion on shades of meaning of a key term，or appropriateness of using a term in a certain context.Sweeping comments or discussion on the practical value of new knowledge are often censured.The participants of a seminar jointly generate and refine new knowledge.The non-commenting audience，however，also contribute to the objective，through their regular participation，explicit appreciation for a good piece of research，and encouragement for research with room for improvement.

The second function of the seminar，that is，continuation of the research culture，is well reflected in the pattern of commenting of the members.There is no written rule about who can contribute to the open discussion after the presentation；however，in most cases members participate in the discussion only when they are “ready”，to borrow Felix’s term.Usually second year PhD students or more senior members contribute to the discussion and the first year students listen in.Some comments are picked up by senior members of the group，whereas others are not，and some are even cut short in the middle，which in some cases reflect these senior members’ informal，negative evaluation of the comments.In order for a contribution to be appreciated，the rules on turn taking，the content and language of the comments should reflect the culture of the seminar，which can be learned only through long-term observation and gradual participation.Felix observes：

Don’t expect [the participants] to be able to [comment in the seminar] right away… Somebody who is expert has a huge stock of experience.And trying to，pretending for somebody with two years of experience to do the same is silly.[Learning to participate in the seminar appropriately] is a long hard slog.

This hierarchical distribution of turns helps the peripheral participants’ socialisation，as it increases their exposure to the kind of knowledge the community values and to the way they can be collectively built and shared.Therefore，it is not rare to hear visiting scholars from other contexts remark that they are at a loss on when and how to join the discussion，regardless of their experience in academia.Difficulties of participating in the seminar reported by academics from other contexts and the remark quoted above clearly reflect previous observations that becoming a member of a professional community cannot be achieved through simply acquiring relevant skills which are transferable across contexts.It requires learning about the culture of the community including hidden assumptions and unarticulated rules through a long-term interaction（Holmes and Meyerhoff，1999；Wenger，1999），and the communities of higher education are not exceptions（e.g.，Preece，2009）.

In addition to distribution of turns，“disciplinary” measures are also in place.The atmosphere of the seminar is collegial on the whole；however，if the presenters，either deliberately or through a lack of awareness，do not address the raised issue，they are chastised by the members collectively.The members take turns to raise the issue from varied perspectives，until the presenter acknowledges the problem in the particular knowledge claim，which is often followed by collaborative solution seeking.The following excerpt illustrates this.Here a presenter proposes the need to merge ethnography with conversation analysis（CA）.The following interaction followed right after his presentation.The commenter 1 sees ethnography as a research approach that can also lead researchers to focus on patterns of interaction.（The details are omitted so that the speakers remain anonymous.）

Commenter 1：What do you think is the difference between ethnography and qualitative research [in which the presenter positioned CA]？

Presenter：Emic knowledge is important，but more is needed to explain the patterns of interaction…

Commenter 2：I think it’s positioning ethnography in such a narrow way that…

Here，commenter 1 tries to raise the issue that for some researchers，detailed analysis of interactional patterns as adopted by CA can also be used in ethnography，therefore，the presenter’s suggestion to merge ethnography with qualitative research where he placed CA reflects a limited understanding of ethnography.The presenter does not seem to have followed the commenter’s line of thinking.After the presenter’s response exhibiting this lack of awareness of the raised issue，another commenter picks up the theme and argues that the presenter’s way of understanding ethnography is positioning it in a narrow way，meaning that it is just one way of understanding，which may not be agreed to by all.Thus，the two commenters are challenging the assumption of the presenter on which the argument is built，that is，the two approaches are separate.At this point，the presenter acknowledged the issue.If the presenter does not understand the focal point through such indirect questions or fails to see the issue from a new perspective，the chair or a senior member explicitly but respectfully points out the problem.Such scrutiny is applied to any members：even senior academics，when they present，are subject to criticisms，and most are willing to acknowledge their oversights or need for further study，which help the peripheral members see the importance of the openness to new ideas and to criticism throughout their career.

In supervisory meetings，also the three types of comments，in particular，observations and challenges，are frequently used.In supervision，the PhD student puts forward his or her knowledge claims verbally or in writing.The supervisors listen to or read the arguments and identify areas of improvement，and use observations and challenges to draw the student’s attention to the problematic area.Some are more direct and explicitly require justification of the claims，and others are rather subtle but still achieve the same function，challenging the assumptions，pointing out the incoherence in argument or questioning the interpretation of the data，as the examples below show：

Yes-is it necessary to say why？

So are you assuming he was already able to do this？

Lee’s reflection below shows the common functions achieved by the seminars and the supervisory meetings in terms of problematising data analysis，though the different approaches between them are also noted：

From my presentation at the research seminar，I learned that I have so many assumptions [that I do not share with the audience] and that I need to read line by line and think about each sentence if not for each word，and why the participants say something，which I dismissed as only applying to a micro level discourse analysis.However，I realised that Dr.X’s [supervisor] idea of data analysis in terms of identifying themes is not much different from what Felix and others do.Of course，my supervisor does not require detailed discourse analysis，but all the same very much interested to see why the participants say each sentence，what they exactly mean，how I know it means that，and how my understanding can be justified.So in that sense，both approaches are very similar.

The culture of fostering enlightenment is also replicated in the supervision.Regular feedback on submitted drafts helps the students gradually see their writing from the supervisors’ perspective.When the supervisors’ views differ from that of a PhD student’s on a topic or an issue，rather than claiming their expertise and making decisions for the student，the supervisors often listen to the arguments of the student，and help the student to see any gaps in the idea，or they change their own views in the light of the new knowledge brought in by the student.The supervisors’ attitude has democratic qualities of openness to argument and to change.It also suggests a belief that knowledge is contestable.Supervisors’ efforts not to disrupt the routine schedule of supervisory meetings also impart the attitude of sincerity and conscientiousness，which is indispensable for mutual，continuous academic growth.

There are some commonalities between this communal process of generation of new knowledge from data in the discipline of Applied Linguistics，with that of the discipline of Molecular Genetics，to view the description by Amann and Knorr Cetina（1988）.The two fields share “the machinery of seeing”，in a sense，though they actually differ in terms of operationalisation.Molecular Genetics adopts placing autoradiograph films against physical light，whereas the Applied Linguistics discipline puts ideas against the light of scrutiny through verbal highlighting with challenging questions and observations.In both fields，knowledge is generated through analysing participants’ speech，or talks.Through this process something which did not yet qualify as evidence is forged and refined to become a legitimate evidence of a knowledge claim，or “belief” in Amann and Knorr Cetina’s（ibid.）term.Although the foci of the analysing talk are obviously different，in one field，RNA films，and in the other，verbalised ideas，in both disciplines，it is the talks which generate knowledge.

Signature pedagogical content

The previous section outlines the pedagogical practices that were prevalent in the programme；this section focuses on the pedagogical content and what it reveals about the interpretation of Applied Linguistics in the specific case.The evidence comes from Lee’s reflections.As an international student on the programme，whose prior schooling had been in Asia，Lee felt that she was a peripheral member of the community because she came from different cultural and linguistic traditions.This allowed her insights from an etic（outsider）perspective，while she was being inducted into an emic（insider）perspective as part of the doctoral programme.

In an interview for this paper，Lee noted that the majority of the academics in the group adopted a post-modernist stance on studies in Applied Linguistics.

There is a strong preference for authors such as Foucault and Bourdieu among the members and I felt that it was almost compulsory to cite their work or to adopt their analytical lenses in our studies.I thought the works by students who adopted post-modernist views were more valued.

This preference led Lee to feel rather marginalised in the group.Lee，who had long been an educational practitioner，would sometimes ask what practical implications the shared research would have，which received a rather lukewarm response，and，on one occasion，was openly censured.

I felt as if I was out of the place because my contributions to the discussion，which often asked about the practical implications were not as enthusiastically responded to by the leading members.We were advised that we should be wary of prescriptions out of the context.In one discussion，an academic said that，while focusing on practical values of research，I was perhaps evaluating the research from a neoliberal perspective，which the person had been fighting against.I felt ashamed.

The post-modern orientation of the research group created a hierarchy in terms of research perspectives，with critical，post-modernist studies being placed at the top rung，while for instance，investigative studies of practice were viewed as low status，and of inconsequential topics.

Overall，I felt my proposed research was seen as not really valuable.Other topics which had a strong post-modernist orientation attracted far more discussion and positive comments.I think throughout all the years I was studying，I had to fight the internalised sense of self-doubt.