Abstract This paper focuses on the under-researched genre of PhD supervision meetings (but see Vehviläinen, Sanna. 2009a. Problems in the research problem: Critical feedback and resistance in academic supervision. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 53[2]. 185–201; Vehviläinen, Sanna. 2009b. Student-initiated advice in academic supervision. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42[2]. 163–190; Björkman, Beyza. 2015. PhD supervisor–PhD student interactions in an English-medium Higher Education [HE] setting: Expressing disagreement. European Journal of Applied Linguistics 3[2]. 205–229; Björkman, Beyza. 2016. PhD adviser and student interactions as a spoken academic genre. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw [eds.], The Routledge handbook of English for Academic Purposes, 348–361. Oxon: Routledge; Björkman, Beyza. 2017. PhD supervision meetings in an English as a Lingua Franca [ELF] setting: Linguistic competence and content knowledge as neutralizers of institutional and academic power. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 6[1]. 111–139) and investigates knowledge construction episodes in PhD students’ discussions with their supervisors on their co-authored papers. In these meetings, all supervisors and students use English as their lingua franca (ELF). Such supervision meetings are made up of “social negotiation” and “collaborative sense-making,” providing a good base for learning to take place (Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), which in the present context is the “enculturation” of the PhD student into the research community (Manathunga, Catherine. 2014. Intercultural postgraduate supervision: Reimagining time, place and knowledge. New York: Routledge). It is precisely these negotiation and collaborative sense-making practices that the present paper focuses on, in order to investigate knowledge construction practices. While there is an abundance of research in disciplinary knowledge construction and academic literacy practices from cognitive and behavioral sciences, knowledge about novice scholars’ knowledge construction practices is scant in applied linguistics (but see Li, Yongyan. 2006. Negotiating knowledge contribution to multiple discourse communities: A doctoral student of computer science writing for publication. Journal of Second Language Writing 15[3]. 159–178). Even less is known about how PhD students may negotiate knowledge construction and engage in meaning-making practices in interaction with their supervisors. The material comprises 11 hours of naturally occurring speech by three supervisors and their students where they discuss the reviewers’ comments they have received from the journal. The predominant method employed here is applied conversation analysis (CA) (Richards, Keith & Paul Seedhouse [eds.]. 2005. Applying conversation analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan), which includes both local patterns of interaction as well as “the tensions between [these] local practices and any ‘larger structures’ in which these are embedded, such as conventional membership categories, institutional rules, instructions, accounting obligations, etc.” (Have, Paul ten. 2007. Doing conversation analysis. London: Sage 199). The analyses here aim to show how the PhD supervisors and students discuss the reviewers’ comments with reference to (i) their own disciplinary community of climate science, and (ii) the domestic discourse community of the target journals (see also Li, Yongyan. 2006. Negotiating knowledge contribution to multiple discourse communities: A doctoral student of computer science writing for publication. Journal of Second Language Writing 15[3]. 159–178). The preliminary findings of the analyses show a tendency by the PhD students to focus more heavily on the domestic discourse community of the target journals, especially when justifying their methodological choices. The PhD supervisors, on the other hand, base their meaning-making on the conventions of the disciplinary community of climate science, pointing out broader disciplinary community practices. These findings, highlighting a need to focus on novice scholars’ meaning-making efforts, can be used to inform PhD supervision in general.

中文翻译：

---

“这对大多数人来说并不熟悉”：在监督互动中导航同行评审员的评论和博士生的知识构建实践

以英语作为通用语 [ELF] 设置的博士监督会议：语言能力和内容知识作为制度和学术权力的中和剂。英语作为通用语杂志 6[1]。111-139) 并调查博士生与导师就他们合着的论文进行讨论中的知识构建事件。在这些会议上，所有主管和学生都使用英语作为他们的通用语言 (ELF)。此类督导会议由“社会协商”和“合作意义建构”组成，为学习的发生提供了良好的基础（Vygotsky, LS 1978. 社会中的心智：高级心理过程的发展。剑桥，马萨诸塞州：哈佛大学出版社），在目前的情况下，这是博士生“融入”研究社区的过程（Manathunga, Catherine. 2014。跨文化研究生督导：重新想象时间、地点和知识。纽约：劳特利奇）。本论文所关注的正是这些协商和协作意义构建实践，以研究知识构建实践。虽然认知和行为科学在学科知识构建和学术素养实践方面有大量研究，但应用语言学中关于新手学者知识构建实践的知识却很少（但见 Li, Yongyan. 2006. Negotiating Knowledge Contribution to multiple discourse community : 计​​算机科学写作的博士生出版. Journal of Second Language Writing 15[3]. 159–178). 对于博士生如何与导师互动，如何协商知识构建和参与意义制定实践，我们知之甚少。该材料包括三位主管及其学生自然发生的 11 小时演讲，他们讨论了他们从期刊收到的审稿人的评论。这里采用的主要方法是应用对话分析 (CA)（Richards、Keith 和 Paul Seedhouse [eds.]。2005 年。应用对话分析。贝辛斯托克：Palgrave Macmillan），其中包括本地交互模式以及“之间的紧张关系”。 [这些] 当地惯例以及嵌入这些惯例的任何‘更大的结构’，例如传统的会员类别、机构规则、指示、会计义务等。” （有，保罗十。2007。做对话分析。伦敦：贤者 199）。这里的分析旨在展示博士生导师和学生如何参考（i）他们自己的气候科学学科社区和（ii）目标期刊的国内话语社区（另见 Li, Yongyan. 2006. 协商对多个话语社区的知识贡献：计算机科学写作的博士生出版. 第二语言写作杂志 15[3]. 159-178)。分析的初步结果表明，博士生倾向于更加关注目标期刊的国内话语社区，尤其是在证明他们的方法选择合理时。另一方面，博士生导师根据气候科学学科界的惯例来理解他们的意义，指出更广泛的学科社区实践。这些发现强调需要关注新手学者的意义建构努力，可用于为博士监督提供一般信息。