Interculturality and Interdisciplinarity in Bachelor Thesis Writing: Mentors’ and Mentees’ Perceptions

Main Article Content

Mira Bekar


This paper explores some aspects of the Anglo-centred (US-based and UK-based educational practices) academic literacy promoted in a non-native English academic context. It seeks to understand better how mentors who were trained and partly educated in an Anglo-centred settings, or never received education abroad, affect the bachelor thesis writing process of their mentees. Through several methods such as analysis of theses’ structures written in L2 (English), surveys and semi-structured interviews with students and with their mentors in three fields, I will present the findings on how the student positioning is affected when they write a BA thesis in English, while simultaneously trying to cope with the transcultural instruction and the local institutional requirements. The thematic analysis also highlights a range of educational practices and understandings of the thesis writing process including, on one hand, how students build argumentation, distinguish between facts and opinions, become objective, avoid plagiarism following the Anglo-centred writing instruction and, on the other, a fluidity in how university professors use their diverse linguistic and educational resources for the same purpose, without challenging the dominating values of the L2 academic literacy.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Bekar, Mira. 2022. “Interculturality and Interdisciplinarity in Bachelor Thesis Writing: Mentors’ and Mentees’ Perceptions”. Journal of Contemporary Philology 5 (2), 77–91.
Selected Articles


Bekar, M, & Fay, R. (2020). Developing Anglo-centric literacy: Problematizing understandings of criticality. In A. Simpson, & F. Dervin (Eds.), The meaning of criticality in education research: Reflecting on critical pedagogy (pp. 23-45). Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.
Bekar, M., & Yakhontova, T. (2021). Dimensions of student writers’ self in qualitative research interviews. In L. M. Muresan and C. Orna-Montesinos (Eds.) Academic Literacy Development: Perspectives on Multilingual Scholars’ Approaches to Writing. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. London: Routledge.
Delcambre,I,, & Reuter, Y. The French Didactics Approach to Writing, from Elementary School to University. In B. Daunay, I. Delcambre, Y. Reuter & V. d’Ascq (Eds.), Didactique du Français: Le Socioculturel en Question. Presses Universitaireds u Septentrion.
Donahue, C. (2009). Internationalization’ and Composition Studies: Reorienting the Discourse. College Composition and Communication 61(2): 212-243.
Edwards, V. (2004). Multilingualism in the English-speaking world. Oxford: Blackwell.
Filippou, K., Kallo, J., & Mikkilä-Erdmann, M. (2017). Students’ views on thesis supervision in international master’s degree programmes in Finnish universities. Intercultural Education, 28(3), 334–352.
Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Seabury.
Grant, B. M. (2008). Agonistic Struggle: Master slave dialogues in humanities supervision. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 7(1), 9–27.
Halse, C. (2011). Becoming a supervisor’: The impact of doctoral supervision on supervisors’ learning, Studies in Higher Education, 36(5), 557-570, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2011.594593
Holmes, P., Fay, R., Andrews, J., & Attia, M. (2013). Researching multilingually: New theoretical and methodological directions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23(3), 285–299.
Holmes, P., Fay, R., Andrews, J., & Attia, M. (2016). How to research multilingually: Possibilities and complexities. In H. Zhu (Ed.), Research methods in intercultural communication: A practical guide (pp. 88–102). London: Wiley.
Hu, Y., van der Rijst, R. M., van Veen, K., & Verloop, N. (2016). The purposes and processes of master’s thesis supervision: a comparison of Chinese and Dutch supervisors. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(5), 910–924.
Ives, G., and G. Rowley. (2005). “Supervisor Selection or Allocation and Continuity of Supervision: Ph.D. Students’ Progress and Outcomes.” Studies in Higher Education 30: 535–555.
Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification, and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk and H. Widdowson (eds.). English in the world: Teaching and learning of language and literature, 11-30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kobayashi, S., B. Grout, and CØ Rump. (2013). “Interaction and Learning in PhD
Supervision–a Qualitative Study of Supervision with Multiple Supervisors.” Dansk Universitetspædagogisk Tidsskrift 8: 13–25.
Mainhard, T., R. van der Rijst, J. van Tartwijk, and T. Wubbels. (2009). “A Model for the Supervisor–Doctoral Student Relationship.” Higher Education 58: 359–373.
Pennycook, A. (2010). Critical applied linguistics: a critical introduction. London, Routledge.
Roberts, L. D., & Seaman, K. (2018). Good undergraduate dissertation supervision: perspectives of supervisors and dissertation coordinators. International Journal for Academic Development, 23(1), 28–40.
Scholefield, D., & Cox, G. (2016). Evaluation of a model of dissertation supervision for 3rd year B.Sc. undergraduate nursing students. Nurse Education in Practice, 17, 78–85.
Sidhu et. al. (2014). Postgraduate supervision: Comparing student perspectives fromMalaysia and the United Kingdom. Procedia – Social and Behevioral Sciences 123, 151-159.
Simpson, A. (2020). Introduction: Beyond impotent criticality in education research? In A. Simpson, & F. Dervin (Eds.), The meaning of criticality in education research: Reflecting on critical pedagogy (pp. 23-45). Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.