Prescriptive advice about doctoral writing often fails to recognise the complexities of the doctoral journey. Linguistic and cultural backgrounds are negated where advice about writing converges around a norm. In this paper, we explore the role of ‘advice’ in our growth as thesis writers by examining our literacy history and tensions we faced while writing our theses. We pursue a duoethnographic process (Sawyer & Norris, 2013), a process that facilitates the construction and reconstruction of perspectives. From our differing backgrounds, we experienced discourses of ‘advice’ in alternative ways. We identify opposing 'advice' trends which, in turn, provided a space for our agency. Inspired by Foucault’s (1977) ‘power/knowledge’ we think of past experiences and encounters along our doctoral journey as power effects which shaped our views on advice. We conclude by outlining how insights for our teacher-selves inform how we speak about impacts and advice with doctoral students.

Les chercheurs doivent citer ce travail comme suit :

• Gormley, K., Mochizuki, N., (2025), "Power effects, normalising advice and evolving knowledge of doctoral writing", HSSCommons: (DOI: 10.31468/dwr.989)

  Copy Citation | Export metadata as... | JSON | CSV | RO-Crate | BibTex | EndNote

1. academic literacies
2. advice
3. duoethnography
4. knowledge
5. normalisation
6. power

Original publication: Gormley, Kevin; Mochizuki, Naoko. "Power effects, normalising advice and evolving knowledge of doctoral writing." Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie, vol. 33, 2023, pp. 1-24. DOI: 10.31468/dwr.989. This material has been re-published in an unmodified form on the Canadian HSS Commons with the permission of Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie. Copyright © the author(s). Work published in DW/R is licensed under the Creative Commons CC BY-SA license