You finally send your dissertation prospectus to your committee after weeks, or perhaps months, of reading, writing, revising, and second-guessing. Then it comes back covered in comments. Your problem statement needs more support. One research question is too broad. The purpose statement needs clarification. Your framework does not seem fully connected to the study. A committee member questions whether the proposed method is the right fit. It is easy to look at all those comments and think, Do I have to start over?

That reaction is understandable. A dissertation prospectus is not just another class assignment. By the time you submit it, you have usually spent a great deal of time deciding what you want to study and explaining why the study matters. Criticism of the prospectus can therefore feel much bigger than criticism of a few pages of writing. Doctoral researchers are also expected to develop expertise while learning how to communicate that expertise through academic writing, which can make criticism especially difficult during the early stages of dissertation development (Casanave, 2019). But a heavily commented prospectus is not necessarily a failed prospectus.

Committee feedback is part of the process of turning an initial research idea into a study that can actually be carried out and defended. Research on doctoral supervision shows that feedback plays an important role in helping students develop both their research thinking and academic writing (Yang, 2023). Supervisors may question an argument, ask for stronger evidence, challenge a methodological choice, or point out gaps in the logic of a proposed study. These comments can be frustrating, but they often identify places where the researcher knows what they mean but has not yet made that meaning clear enough on the page.

The difficulty is knowing how much to change. When several committee members leave comments across different sections, starting from a blank page may seem easier than sorting through them. Usually, it is not. Much of the existing prospectus may still be useful. The real task is figuring out which parts are working, which need stronger support, and which genuinely need to change. This matters because doctoral students tend to value feedback that is clear and encouraging, while also wanting feedback that allows them to retain ownership of their work rather than simply being told what to write (Hoomanfard & Rahimi, 2024).

So, before deleting pages of work, take a closer look at what your committee is actually telling you. The goal is not to defend every sentence you originally wrote, nor is it to rebuild the entire prospectus every time someone raises a concern. The goal is to use the feedback to make the study clearer, better aligned, and easier to defend. In many cases, that means revising with purpose rather than starting over.

I. Decode What Your Committee Is Actually Asking You to Change

Getting committee feedback is one thing. Figuring out what the comments actually mean is another. A note such as “needs more support” may seem straightforward until you sit down to revise. Does your committee want more scholarly sources? Do they want newer research? Is the research gap unclear? Or have you made a claim without fully explaining why it matters? If you guess, you may spend hours rewriting a section only to discover that you have not addressed the committee’s real concern.

That is why your first response to feedback should not be to start rewriting. First, work out what each comment is asking you to change. According to Carless and Boud (2018), using feedback effectively requires more than receiving comments. Students need to understand the information, make judgments about their work, and take appropriate action.

Turn Comments Into Specific Revision Tasks

Start by reading all of the committee’s feedback before changing the prospectus. Then turn each comment into something you can actually do. Suppose a committee member writes, “The problem is not sufficiently established.” It is tempting to assume that your research problem is wrong. But that may not be what the comment means. Perhaps the problem is appropriate, but you have not provided enough recent evidence to show that it exists. Maybe you have described the general topic without showing the consequences of the problem. Your task might simply be: add current research demonstrating the problem and explain why it needs further study.

Do the same with short comments such as “too broad,” “unclear,” “needs justification,” or “reconsider.” Translate each one into an action: narrow the population, define this concept, provide scholarly evidence, or explain why this method fits the research question.

This approach helps you engage with feedback instead of making changes simply because a committee member marked something. Zhang and Hyland (2022) highlight that responding to supervisory feedback is an active process in which graduate researchers interpret comments and decide how those comments should shape subsequent revisions.

Identify What Part of the Study the Comment Affects

Next, sort the feedback according to the part of the prospectus it concerns. You might have separate categories for the research problem, literature and research gap, purpose statement, research questions, theoretical or conceptual framework, methodology, population and sample, and writing or formatting. This step matters because not every comment carries the same weight.

A request to correct an APA citation is relatively contained. A comment questioning whether your methodology can answer your research questions could affect several parts of the study. That issue needs attention before you spend an afternoon fixing references or adjusting headings.

According to Stracke and Kumar (2016), supervisory written feedback can perform different functions, including directing students toward changes and communicating evaluations of their work. Their research also shows that the language used in feedback can affect how doctoral students understand and experience those comments. This is another reason to look beyond the wording of an individual note and consider what part of your study the committee is actually questioning.

Separate Major Concerns From Minor Corrections

Once you have grouped the comments, rank them by importance. Major concerns affect the logic, direction, or feasibility of the proposed study. These might involve your research problem, purpose, research questions, methodology, population, or ability to obtain the necessary data.

Moderate concerns usually call for stronger explanation, better evidence, clearer definitions, or more obvious connections between ideas. Minor concerns include grammar, formatting, citation errors, headings, and sentence-level wording. Work on the major issues first. There is little benefit in polishing the wording of a research question when your committee is questioning whether that question belongs in the study.

Bao and Feng (2025) note that supervisory feedback can help doctoral students develop academic literacy by making some of the less obvious expectations of scholarly work more visible. Their findings also highlight the value of feedback in helping doctoral researchers become more reflective and independent academic writers. In other words, committee comments are not simply corrections to make. They can also show you where the reasoning behind your study needs to become stronger.

Look for Patterns Across the Feedback

Finally, avoid treating every comment as a separate problem. Sometimes several comments are pointing to the same weakness. For example, your committee may question the research gap in one section, write “How does this connect?” beside the purpose statement, and then question one of the research questions. You could revise all three passages separately. However, the deeper problem may be that the gap, purpose, and questions are not clearly connected.

Yang (2023) highlights the importance of reflection when doctoral researchers work with supervisory feedback. Rather than immediately making surface-level corrections, reflecting on what the feedback means can help the researcher understand the larger academic issue behind it. So, after reading all the comments, ask yourself a simple question: What concern keeps appearing, even when my committee uses different words to describe it? Finding that pattern can save you from unnecessary rewriting. One carefully planned change may address several comments at once.

Once you understand what your committee is asking you to change, do not assume that everything surrounding those comments also needs to disappear. Your prospectus may require meaningful revision while still containing a great deal of useful work. The next step is to separate what should stay from what needs attention. That means looking at your existing prospectus with a simple goal: protect the parts that still work before you start replacing them.

II. Protect the Parts of Your Prospectus That Still Work

Once you understand your committee’s feedback, the next temptation may be to start cutting large sections from your prospectus. Be careful. A request to revise part of your study does not mean everything you have already written is unusable. Your prospectus may contain a strong discussion of the topic, useful scholarly sources, a well-defined population, or a solid explanation of the study’s significance. The goal at this stage is to protect that work while making room for the changes your committee actually wants.

Use a “Keep, Revise, Replace” Approach

One practical way to review your prospectus is to place the existing material into three categories: keep, revise, or replace. Keep material that still supports the direction of the study and has not been challenged by the committee. Revise material when the basic idea is sound, but the explanation, evidence, scope, or wording needs work. Replace material only when it no longer fits the study or when the committee has identified a genuine problem that cannot be corrected through revision.

This approach can prevent what Kamler and Thomson (2014) describe as the tendency for doctoral writers to become overwhelmed by the scale of thesis writing. Their work highlights the value of treating doctoral writing as a process of developing and reshaping existing material rather than expecting every piece of writing to emerge perfectly formed.

Identify the Core of the Study Before Making Major Changes

Before deleting anything substantial, ask yourself what remains central to the proposed research. Is the main problem still worth investigating? Is the population still appropriate? Are you still interested in the same phenomenon, experience, or variables? Is the setting still feasible?

If the answers are yes, you probably have more to preserve than you initially thought. According to Maxwell (2013), research design involves several interconnected components, including goals, conceptual frameworks, research questions, methods, and validity concerns. A weakness in one component does not automatically require abandoning every other component. Instead, the researcher needs to consider how a proposed change affects the rest of the design.

This distinction can save a great deal of unnecessary work. Narrowing a population from all healthcare workers to registered nurses, for example, is a meaningful change, but it does not necessarily mean that every source in your literature review is suddenly irrelevant.

Check the Ripple Effect Before You Change Something

Some revisions are small. Others travel through the entire prospectus. Before making a major change, trace where that idea appears elsewhere in the document. If you change the population, for example, you may need to update the problem statement, purpose, research questions, sampling plan, and significance of the study. If you change one theoretical concept, you may need to revisit how that concept is defined and measured.

Ravitch and Carl (2021) note that qualitative research design is iterative rather than a simple sequence of isolated decisions. Changes made to one part of a study can influence other research decisions. This is why it helps to consider the consequences of a revision before making it.

Do Not Throw Away Useful Research

Your existing literature is another area worth protecting. A committee request for “more current research” does not necessarily mean replacing every older source. Seminal research may still be important for explaining a theory, model, or established concept. What you may need is newer scholarship alongside it. The same principle applies to paragraphs, definitions, methodological explanations, and even sections you decide to remove. Keep earlier versions of your prospectus instead of permanently deleting material.

According to Boice (1990), productive academic writing develops through regular drafting and revision rather than waiting for a single polished version. Keeping earlier drafts gives you something valuable to return to if the study changes again.

The point is not to hold onto every sentence because you worked hard on it. Some material genuinely needs to go. The point is to make that decision because the material no longer serves the study, not because a page full of committee comments made the entire prospectus look beyond repair.

Once you have separated what can stay from what truly needs revision, you can focus on how those pieces fit together. A prospectus can contain individually strong sections and still leave a committee unconvinced if the problem, gap, purpose, questions, framework, and methodology seem to be describing slightly different studies. The next step, therefore, is to restore alignment across the prospectus rather than revising each section in isolation.

III. Restore Alignment Across the Prospectus Instead of Revising Sections in Isolation

One of the easiest mistakes to make when responding to committee feedback is to revise each comment exactly where it appears and then move on. You fix the problem statement on page three, rewrite a research question on page seven, and adjust the methodology later in the document. Each change may look fine on its own, but together they can create a new problem: the sections no longer describe the same study.

A strong prospectus should read as one connected research plan. According to Maxwell (2013), research design is an interactive process in which the goals, conceptual framework, research questions, methods, and validity concerns influence one another. That means a meaningful change in one area should prompt you to check the others.

Start With the Research Problem

Begin by returning to the problem your study is trying to address. Can you state it clearly in a few sentences? More importantly, have you shown that the problem actually exists? A research problem needs more than a broad statement that a topic is important. It should be grounded in scholarly evidence and narrow enough to investigate. Booth et al. (2016) note that a research problem develops when researchers move beyond identifying a topic and establish what is not adequately known or understood and why that lack of knowledge matters. This gives you a useful starting point for reviewing the rest of the prospectus. Every major decision that follows should make sense in light of that problem.

Connect the Research Gap to the Problem

The research gap should explain why another study is needed. It is not simply a statement that “few studies exist.” According to Miles (2017), research gaps can take different forms, including gaps involving evidence, knowledge, populations, methodology, theory, and practice. Identifying the specific type of gap makes it easier to explain exactly what your study will contribute.

For example, plenty of research may exist on employee burnout, but very little may examine burnout among a particular professional group or within a specific organizational setting. In that case, your gap is more precise than simply saying that burnout requires additional research.

Make Sure the Purpose Answers the Problem

Next, compare the problem statement with the purpose statement. They should feel like two parts of the same conversation. If your problem concerns the experiences of first-generation doctoral students receiving mentorship, your purpose should not suddenly focus on measuring general graduate student satisfaction. That shift may seem obvious when stated plainly, but smaller versions of it frequently appear during repeated revisions.

Creswell and Creswell (2018) highlight that the purpose statement establishes the central intent of a study and should reflect the major elements of the proposed research. Read your problem and purpose back-to-back. A reader should immediately understand how conducting the proposed study will help address the problem you established.

Test Each Research Question Against the Purpose

Your research questions narrow that purpose into questions the study can actually answer. Take each question individually and ask: If I answer this question, will the answer help accomplish the stated purpose? Also ask whether the data you plan to collect can realistically answer it. A question about participants’ lived experiences, for example, requires a different research approach from a question asking whether one measurable variable predicts another.

Agee (2009) highlights that qualitative research questions often develop through an iterative process and should remain connected to the purpose and direction of the inquiry. Research questions should therefore not be treated as stand-alone sentences that can be revised without considering the rest of the design.

Check Whether the Framework Truly Belongs

The theoretical or conceptual framework should also have a clear job in the study. Avoid including a theory simply because your program requires a framework section.

Ravitch and Riggan (2017) describe conceptual frameworks as tools that help researchers connect existing scholarship, theoretical ideas, personal knowledge, and the proposed research design. In practical terms, your framework should help explain how you understand the problem and what you expect to examine.

Ask yourself: What does this framework help me see or explain that I could not explain as clearly without it? If that question is difficult to answer, the connection may need more work.

Finish With Methodological Alignment

Finally, make sure the methodology can deliver what the earlier sections promise. Your design, participants, data collection procedures, and analysis should all support the research questions. According to Creswell and Poth (2018), the selection of a qualitative approach should reflect the nature of the research problem and what the researcher seeks to understand. The same basic principle applies across research traditions: your method should follow from the question rather than being chosen first and forced onto the study afterward.

A simple alignment check can help:

Problem → Research Gap → Purpose → Research Questions → Framework → Method → Data → Analysis

Read through that chain from left to right. At each arrow, ask whether the next component logically follows from the one before it. If you have to make a long explanation to justify the connection, your committee may have the same difficulty following it.

Alignment does not mean repeating the same sentences throughout your prospectus. It means that every major section is working toward the same research goal.

Once these pieces are aligned, many committee concerns become much easier to address. But not every comment will come with a clear solution. You may receive a vague note such as “rethink this,” two committee members may recommend different approaches, or you may disagree with a suggested change altogether. The next challenge is knowing how to respond to those difficult or conflicting comments without guessing what your committee wants or making unnecessary changes.

IV. Handle Difficult, Vague, or Conflicting Committee Comments Strategically

Not every committee comment will tell you exactly what to do. Some may be only a few words: “unclear,” “reconsider,” or “needs work.” Others may leave you wondering whether the committee member wants a small clarification or a major change. Things become even more complicated when two committee members seem to want different things.

The worst response is to guess and then spend hours rewriting. Difficult feedback calls for a more deliberate approach.

Ask Before You Rewrite an Ambiguous Comment

If you cannot tell what a comment means, do not assume the most drastic interpretation. According to Chugh et al. (2022), effective supervisory feedback depends not only on the feedback provided but also on how postgraduate researchers understand and engage with it. A short comment that makes perfect sense to your chair may not give you enough information to know what needs revision.

Turn vague comments into specific questions. If your chair writes “reconsider the population,” for example, ask whether the concern is the size of the population, access to participants, eligibility criteria, or the population’s connection to the research problem. A five-minute clarification can prevent several hours of unnecessary rewriting.

Deal With Conflicting Recommendations Carefully

You may also encounter a situation where one committee member recommends a change, and another appears to prefer the current approach. Do not try to satisfy both by combining two incompatible suggestions. Instead, identify exactly where the recommendations conflict and what each option would mean for the study.

According to Guerin and Green (2015), doctoral supervision can involve multiple relationships and perspectives rather than a simple one-to-one exchange between a student and a single supervisor. With several academics involved, differences in expectations and advice can occur. When the recommendations cannot reasonably coexist, ask your chair for direction. This is especially important when the disagreement affects your methodology, theoretical framework, research questions, or another decision that could reshape the study.

Know When the Answer Is Better Explanation

Responding to feedback does not always mean agreeing to every suggested change. Sometimes a committee member questions something because your reasoning is not visible enough in the prospectus. For example, you may have a sound reason for selecting a particular sample, but you have not explained that reason clearly.

Zhang and Hyland (2022) highlight that postgraduate researchers actively negotiate supervisory feedback rather than simply accepting every comment without question. That does not mean ignoring feedback you dislike. It means deciding whether the concern requires a change in the study or a clearer explanation of the decision you have already made. When you choose not to make a requested change, however, be prepared to explain why and support that decision with appropriate research or methodological guidance.

Build a Committee Response Matrix

Once the comments become numerous, create a response matrix rather than relying on memory. Your matrix can include the committee comment, the section or page where it appears, what you believe the comment requires, the action you took, and the location of the revision. You can also mark comments that still require clarification.

This simple document gives you a record of what has been addressed and what remains unresolved. It is particularly useful when feedback arrives from several committee members or across multiple rounds of review. According to Carless and Boud (2018), feedback literacy includes the ability to make judgments about feedback and take appropriate action. A response matrix puts that idea into practice by forcing you to connect each comment with a deliberate revision decision.

Make Your Changes Easy to Find

Finally, remember that your committee has to review the prospectus again. Do not make reviewers hunt through the document to find what changed. If your program allows tracked changes, use them. If you submit a response document, state briefly what you changed and where you changed it. For example, instead of writing, “Done,” you might say: “Added recent studies establishing the gap in rural nurse retention on pages 6–7.”

According to Kumar and Stracke (2007), written supervisory feedback plays an important role in doctoral research because it can address both the academic content of the work and the researcher’s development. Treating the revision process as a clear exchange between you and your committee makes it easier for reviewers to see that you understood their concerns rather than simply editing around their comments.

Once the difficult comments have been clarified and addressed, there is still one important step before sending the prospectus back. Individual revisions may solve individual concerns, but they can also create small inconsistencies elsewhere. The final task is to read the prospectus again as a complete research plan and make sure the revised version is coherent, feasible, and ready for the next committee review.

V. Prepare the Revised Prospectus for the Next Committee Review

You have worked through the comments, made the major revisions, and clarified the difficult points. It may feel like the prospectus is ready to go straight back to your committee. Give it one more careful review first.

Committee revisions are often made over several days or weeks. During that time, you may change a paragraph here, add a source there, and rewrite an explanation somewhere else. Those changes can solve the original comments while creating smaller inconsistencies that are easy to miss. Your final review should therefore focus on the prospectus as a whole, not on the committee comments one by one.

Read the Revised Prospectus From Beginning to End

Set the committee comments aside temporarily and read the latest version as if you were seeing the study for the first time. Look for places where an earlier statement no longer matches a later revision. You might have changed the participant criteria in the methodology but left the original population description in the introduction. You may have narrowed the study but still have paragraphs describing its earlier, broader scope. According to Kamler and Thomson (2014), doctoral writing develops through ongoing revision and refinement. A full-document review helps you move beyond simply responding to individual comments and consider how well the revised prospectus works as a complete piece of scholarly writing.

Check Your Terminology One More Time

Committee revisions can also introduce small differences in terminology. If you call the participants “school administrators” in one section, “educational leaders” in another, and “principals” later, ask whether those terms truly refer to the same group. Do the same for key variables, concepts, theories, and methodological terms.

Consistency makes the study easier to follow. According to Booth et al. (2016), clear academic arguments depend on helping readers follow the relationships among claims, reasons, and evidence. Consistent terminology supports that clarity by reducing unnecessary questions about what the researcher means.

Recheck the Evidence Behind Your Decisions

Now review the sources supporting your most important claims. Have you added the scholarship your committee requested? Are key statements about the research problem supported? Are methodological choices backed by appropriate research methods literature?

This is also a good time to check whether your evidence is current where current evidence is needed. Older seminal sources can remain valuable, particularly for established theories and foundational concepts, but they should not substitute for recent research when you are describing the present state of a problem.

Ask Whether the Study Is Still Feasible

A stronger prospectus on paper still needs to be a study you can actually complete. Revisit participant recruitment, access to the research site, data availability, time requirements, ethical considerations, and the proposed analysis. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017) highlights that rigorous research depends on careful research practices throughout the study rather than only at the reporting stage. Ask yourself a practical question: If my committee approved this prospectus today, could I realistically carry out the study as I have described it? If the answer is uncertain, address that concern before resubmitting.

Make Your Responsiveness Visible

Finally, prepare the version your committee will actually review. Follow your university’s requirements for tracked changes, clean copies, response tables, or other revision documents.

Your committee should be able to see that you did more than correct sentences. According to Kumar and Stracke (2007), supervisory feedback can address several aspects of doctoral work, including content, organization, and the development of the researcher. A thoughtful resubmission shows that you understood the reasoning behind the feedback and used it to strengthen the prospectus.

At this point, the goal is not perfection. It is to return a prospectus that is clearer, more defensible, and ready for the committee to evaluate as a serious research plan.

Conclusion

Opening a prospectus filled with committee comments can make it seem as though all the work you have already done was for nothing. In most cases, that is not what the feedback means. Your committee is asking you to make the proposed study clearer, stronger, and easier to defend before you move deeper into the dissertation process. According to Carless and Boud (2018), learning to interpret feedback and use it to improve future work is an important part of developing feedback literacy. For a doctoral student, that means moving beyond simply making corrections and learning to interpret the feedback for the study as a whole.

If you are struggling to interpret committee comments or decide what to revise, professional dissertation help can make the process much more manageable. At Precision Consulting, our dissertation coach and experienced research consultants provide personalized assistance with dissertation revisions for students at different stages of the process. Our dissertation services can help you respond to committee feedback, strengthen your prospectus, refine your methodology, and prepare a clearer and more defensible revision.

Whether you need a focused dissertation help service, ongoing dissertation consulting, or specialized support with qualitative research and qualitative analysis, you do not have to work through complicated revisions alone. Contact Precision Consulting today to discuss your committee feedback and the support you need. We can help you turn those comments into a practical revision plan and move your dissertation forward with greater clarity and confidence.

References

Agee, J. (2009). Developing qualitative research questions: A reflective process. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22(4), 431–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390902736512

Bao, J., & Feng, D. (2025). Supervisory feedback and doctoral students’ academic literacy development: The case of writing for publication. Teaching in Higher Education, 30(4), 862–879. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2023.2283727

Boice, R. (1990). Professors as writers: A self-help guide to productive writing. New Forums Press.

Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & FitzGerald, W. T. (2016). The craft of research (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & FitzGerald, W. T. (2016). The craft of research (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354

Casanave, C. P. (2019). Performing expertise in doctoral dissertations: Thoughts on a fundamental dilemma facing doctoral students and their supervisors. Journal of Second Language Writing, 43, 57–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.02.005

Chugh, R., Macht, S., & Harreveld, B. (2022). Supervisory feedback to postgraduate research students: A literature review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(5), 683–697. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1955241

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Guerin, C., & Green, I. (2015). “They’re the bosses”: Feedback in team supervision. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 39(3), 320–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2013.831039

Hoomanfard, M. H., & Rahimi, M. (2024). L2 master’s and doctoral students’ preferences for supervisor written feedback on their theses/dissertations. Assessing Writing, 62, 100891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2024.100891

Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2014). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315813639

Kumar, V., & Stracke, E. (2007). An analysis of written feedback on a PhD thesis. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(4), 461–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510701415433

Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Miles, D. A. (2017). A taxonomy of research gaps: Identifying and defining the seven research gaps. In Doctoral Student Workshop: Finding Research Gaps—Research Methods and Strategies. Dallas, Texas.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Fostering integrity in research. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/21896

Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2021). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Stracke, E., & Kumar, V. (2016). Exploring doctoral students’ perceptions of language use in supervisory written feedback practices—Because “feedback is hard to have.” Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 39(2), 122–138. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.39.2.02str

Yang, M. (2023). Supervisory feedback, reflection, and academic discourse socialization: Insights from an L2 doctoral student’s paper writing experience. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 62, 101215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101215

Zhang, Y. (O.), & Hyland, K. (2022). Responding to supervisory feedback: Mediated positioning in thesis writing. Written Communication, 39(2), 171–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883211069901