1 27. PhD adviser and student interactions as a spoken academic genre Beyza Björkman Important note: This is a pre-print draft. See the reference for the final published version: Björkman, Beyza. 2016. “PhD adviser and student interactions as a spoken academic genre”. In Hyland, K. and Shaw, P. (Eds.). 348-361. The Routledge handbook of English for Academic Purposes. Routledge. Introduction PhD supervision is undoubtedly a critical genre in academic speaking. Lee (2008) lists five main concepts to a “conceptual approach” to PhD supervision: functional, where the focus is on project management; enculturation, where the issue is about the student becoming a member of the disciplinary community; critical thinking, where the focus of the supervision is to encourage the student to critically analyze his/her and others’ work; emancipation, where the onus is put on the student to evolve, and finally, developing a quality relationship, where the student is inspired (Lee, 2008: 270, 271). Whichever approach one may adopt or prioritize and see as the main aim, achieving communicative effectiveness in PhD adviser-student interactions is an important prerequisite. Much of the research on PhD supervision to date has focused on pedagogical issues such as achieving good supervision and advisery styles (e.g. Gatfield, 2005; Hockey, 1996; Lee, 2008; Sambrook et al., 2008; Sinclair, 2004). Some other issues in research on PhD work have been the assigning of PhD topics (Hasrati and Street, 2009), student perceptions and expectations of the PhD experience (e.g. Heath, 2002; Mainhard et al., 2009; Pole et al., 1997), and different types of problem-oriented studies about the PhD process (e.g. achieving balance as the adviser: Delamont, Perry and Atkinson, 1998; problematic supervision: Hockey, 1996 and Malfroy, 2005; joint supervision as a problematic notion: Pole, 1998). Other studies have investigated the effects of supervision on academic career or PhD completion (e.g. Ives and Rowley, 2005; Over et al., 1990; Wright and Cochrane, 2000). Among the issues that have been researched on from a more empirical angle are certain features and sections of PhD theses and PhD writing process in general (e.g. Hyland, 2004; Paltridge et al., 2012; Pecorari, 2006; Shaw, 1991) as well as student and professors’ perceptions of the PhD writing process (e.g. Belcher, 1994; Bitchener and Basturkmen, 2006), all focusing on the written aspect of PhD