Write on! Cultivating social capital in a writing group for doctoral education and beyond

ABSTRACT

Academic writing is an important skill in the development of researcher identity yet remains a hurdle to many. In this study, we examine the ways in which the exchange of social capital occurs in a writing group in Australia. We use Bourdieu’s theoretical concepts to examine data obtained from open-ended questions in an online survey that asked participants why they attend writing groups. Three key themes were constructed: navigating the gamut of researcher identity; formal structure engenders accountability; and pomodoro breaks facilitate connectedness. We find that there are elements facilitated in writing groups – beyond the act of writing – and suggest these informal settings are noteworthy sites where the exchange of academic disposition and competency occurs.

KEYWORDS:

• Writing groups
• informal learning
• academic identity
• doctoral studies
• social capital
• doxa
• illusio
• Bourdieu

Introduction

The earliest stages of academic life for doctoral students can be a lonely journey and evoke feelings of isolation and insecurity (Wilson & Cutri, 2019). The process of learning how to write is difficult, as scholarly writing and identity formation are woven together. Indeed, one of the most feared conditions for doctoral students and early career researchers (ECRs) is writer’s block (Wegener et al., 2016). The struggle for researchers to write can be compounded by a lack of explicit writing training (Wilson & Cutri, 2019), leaving many academics with “writing-related anxiety”. Drop-out rates from doctoral programmes remain high. Insufficient communication with the wider university community is suggested to be one reason why doctoral studies are discontinued (Leijen et al., 2016). When doctoral students become early career researchers there is increasing pressure to publish to validate their positions and secure funding (Wilson & Cutri, 2019; Woelert & Yates, 2015). However, as McGrail et al. (2006, p. 20) report, many ECRs “have a limited understanding of the writing and publication process”.

Significantly, writing is one of the principal means by which researchers enact their academic identity as specialists in their disciplinary fields (French, 2020). While identity is a dynamic construct that is continually reconstructed, the notion of academic identity refers to the beliefs, ideas, values, experiences, and the core values and principles of academic work (Tülübaş & Göktürk, 2022). A greater awareness of the complexity of practices around scholarly writing at graduate, postgraduate and postdoctoral level is needed (French, 2020, p. 1606). Despite recent literature that supports the claim that the ability to write is one of the most important tools for the success of doctoral candidates and ECRs, there is less consensus as to how such expertise is acquired (Kumar & Aitchison, 2018). The transformative nature of writing for doctoral students is the process of developing their identity as researchers. This often involves a considerable, albeit hidden, struggle with complex identity issues (Starke-Meyerring, 2014). Writing is steeped in questions of identity, as subject positions are shaped largely discursively (Kamler & Thomson, 2014; Wilson & Cutri, 2019). This notion of writing as identity work has important implications for academic writing.

Supervisors have traditionally been responsible for their doctoral students’ acquisition of writing expertise by examination (Stracke & Kumar, 2014). Although supervisors continue to remain central in this process, the complexities and challenges facing supervisors have increased over time in the competitive higher education sector. Supervisors experience increasingly heavy workloads, more students from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds (Odena & Burgess, 2015), and this reduces the time available to support doctoral students. Further, the student-supervisor relationship is highly complex. The ability to reach harmony intellectually, emotionally, behaviourally, and cognitively may negatively impact the transfer of knowledge about academic writing between supervisors and their students (Howells et al., 2017). The heightened expectation for timely completions exacerbates the pressures on both (Owler, 2010). As such, some students seek support outside of the student-supervisor relationship to augment their knowledge of writing, and indeed the passage of becoming an academic.

Receiving scholarly attention internationally are informal academic writing groups that promote writing for publication (Rodas et al., 2021) and support doctoral candidates (Maher et al., 2013). Haas (2014, p. 80) notes “that there is no fixed understanding of what constitutes a ‘writers’ group’”. The term “writing group” can refer to writing retreats, writing circles, creative writing, doctoral writing groups (Aitchison & Guerin, 2014), peer-to-peer groups where participants critique each other's writing, and groups that provide an “academic literacies” model of writing support. Writing retreats are structured events where a group of people write together over several days, sharing their aims, progress and difficulties (Papen & Thériault, 2018). Writing circles and peer-to-peer writing groups are considered semi-structured learning environments (Mewburn et al., 2014). In this paper we use the term “writing group”, as a generic term to refer to situations where more than two people come together to work for a period of silent and sustained writing in public (Aitchison & Guerin, 2014).

Chakma et al. (2021, p. 37) found online writing sessions for graduate research students during the COVID-19 pandemic were “a facilitative ground in which a process and genre approach to writing allowed them to work independently, yet also drawing on advice from others that provided a greater sense of belonging”. The social and emotional benefits from participating in writing groups include feeling a sense of community with other researchers (Rodas et al., 2021). A “writing community” is a place where social and emotional support can be shared through ongoing conversations, acting as a type of buffer for the isolation commonly experienced by doctoral students. In other words, writing groups are communities – often situated outside of the formal university infrastructure – that seek to foster the development of meaningful academic writing practices and identities (Mewburn et al., 2014).

Writing groups have the potential to provide guidance and support for doctoral students, foster wellbeing, resist neoliberal perspectives of writing as product rather than a process (Beasy et al., 2020) and increase scholarly productivity (Tyndall et al., 2019). Doctoral students have, however, reported difficulty in maintaining writing groups without support (Tyndall et al., 2019). Thus, writing groups may benefit from participation by both experienced academics and doctoral students (Tyndall et al., 2019).

The act “of writing is a complex, situated, social and political act that makes and reflects identity, position and power” (Aitchison & Guerin, 2014, p. 38). Yet how this occurs and who aids in that process remains a key concern. The need to produce writing about research happens within and is driven by structural circumstances that are often contradictory and complex. The university field as an institution may be (at least aspirationally) underpinned by ethical concerns and intrinsic motivations to extend knowledge (Marginson, 2007). These environments increasingly respond to, are imposed by, and perpetuate neoliberal ideology.

Areas of the university may be questionable theatres of toxic workplaces and cultures (Smyth, 2017). Being overworked as precariously employed staff (May et al., 2013), some doctoral students may find themselves struggling to survive below the poverty line (Ruming & Dowling, 2017), or within entrenched hierarchical structures that perpetuate inequity (Oleksiyenko & Tierney, 2018). This, in turn, may heighten the vulnerability experienced by students who typically occupy a powerless position within university hierarchies (Oleksiyenko & Tierney, 2018). With this context in mind, we argue for more research into writing groups that explores the network and relationships that influence students’ researcher identity. Indeed, knowledge about the types and nature of writing group experiences and how this may be conducive to researcher identification is limited (Mantai, 2017). We draw on Bourdieu’s (1986) theoretical concepts, to examine the combined potential or actual resources that reside within a group. We propose this is a potent approach to analyse the role communities of scholarship might play in researcher identity formation – outside of the formal structure of the university. We ask how is social capital present in writing group contexts and how is it exchanged to augment the identity of doctoral students?

The context of the study

As part of a larger international project, which examines writing groups that have emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic, this article reports on research undertaken with a writing group that runs every Saturday from 10am – 5pm at a university in Melbourne, Australia. The group is independent of any formal institution. Subscribers to the group are from every academic discipline and university in Victoria. The concept of the event is simple: researchers arrive at the venue, introduce themselves, declare what they will work on and then commence to write for a day structured around the Pomodoro Technique. This writing technique is comprised of 25-minute, focused writing sprints, interspersed with short breaks. Participants enjoy a five-minute break from writing and after four 25-minute pomodoros, participants take a longer, more restorative 15-minute break. The group attracts between 10 and 20 doctoral students, ECRs and mid-career academics each week. The group’s composition is noteworthy, as it is attended by researchers from a range of experience levels and disciplines. Significantly, most studies have reported on writing groups which are attended, predominantly, by doctoral students.

This research was undertaken in 2019 with approval from the Human Research Committee of both researchers’ host organisations. Consistent with the exploratory aims of this study, a non-probability, purposive sampling strategy was adopted to generate a relatively homogenous sample group (Alston & Bowles, 2012). Participants were invited to self-complete an anonymous online survey that gathered demographic data and open-ended questions that sought to reveal insights into the research question. The questions asked participants to describe why they attended writing groups; what their main activity was; did they feel that writing with a group helped them to write more than writing alone and why; and what elements of writing in a group were beneficial to them. Approximately 80 members of the writing group's mailing distribution list were invited to participate, and thirty-six participants completed the survey.

The qualitative data obtained were analysed thematically, guided by Braun and Clarke’s (2019) reflexive thematic analysis to generate themes. In their discussion on critical reflexivity, Braun and Clarke (2019, p. 591) point out,

meaning and meaning-making, and viewing these as always context-bound, positioned and situated, and qualitative data analysis is about telling “stories”, about interpreting, and creating, not discovering and finding the “truth” that is either “out there” and findable from, or buried deep within, the data.

We understood our role in knowledge production as at the heart of this approach, with coding requiring “a continual bending back on oneself” (Braun & Clarke, 2019, p. 594). We constantly questioned and queried the assumptions we were making in interpreting and coding the data (Braun & Clarke, 2019). Our coding approach was collaborative and reflexive. Both authors first read all surveys separately, then, came together to interpret themes by comparing, challenging, and negotiating a richer more nuanced reading of the data. The themes that we constructed (where more than a third of participants made comments relating to these themes) included the following: navigating the gamut of researcher identity; formal structure engenders accountability; and pomodoro breaks facilitate connectedness. The analysis was driven by the researchers’ theoretical interest in Pierre Bourdieu’s (1986) concepts of social capital and habitus – particularly in relation to the field, or social structure. This was considered an appropriate lens to view the data because of its capacity to elucidate the exchanges that occur in social settings that lead to value exchange. This study cross-references the social processes that are enacted through writing groups; beyond the main activity of writing (itself being a form of labour and capital producing action).

Bourdieu's concepts

As a theoretical foundation, we explored Bourdieu’s critical engagement with social and cultural fields: the spaces that facilitate the collection and exchange of capital in its various forms (Bourdieu, 1984). We considered educational institutions as sites of contradictions, particularly where capital exchange occurs, and the reproduction of inequality may be manifest (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). Bourdieu’s (1986) forms of capital are concepts that describe the social, cultural, symbolic and economic capital that social agents inherit, amass and exchange through their individual lived experience and social interactions.

In this paper, we draw on Bourdieu’s inter-related conceptual thinking tools (doxa, illusio, capital, and habitus) as explanatory concepts that explore the individual’s position within social structure while allowing for individual action and agency (Pretorius & Macaulay, 2021). These concepts have the potential to elucidate the exchanges that occur (or do not occur) within social structure and resulting social outcomes. In the context of our study, social capital constitutes a somewhat curious counterpoint between the participants’ involvement within formal fields of university institutions – complete with long established hierarchical structures and modalities – and writing groups. The informal field of the writing group and its comparatively flat hierarchy where researchers of multiple experiences interact while engaging in the act of writing, contrasts with the formal university from which such groups emerged.

Bourdieu frames social capital as the combined resources, or capital, accessed by a group and its members – actually or potentially. It is this potential and capacity for the exchange of capital – in this case, writing and research knowledge and competencies – that the context of a writing group enables. Access to capital and its exchange is far from overt and involves careful mediation of the tacit rules, or doxa, of both formal and informal academic fields (French, 2020). While the main reason for attending writing groups is the production of writing texts and other research artefacts, we explore whether the existence of and access to the group’s social capital is an aspect of attendance. In this exploration, we consider the role of illusio – a term that refers to the extent to which individuals are likely to invest in a particular field to pursue their aspirations (Bourdieu, 1990a; Threadgold, 2018). Doxa and illusio were used to understand how participants navigated the practices of the writing group, and the interrelationship of their individual agency (Pretorius & Macaulay, 2021).

Results

The demographic findings revealed that 80.6% of respondents identified as female. This could be attributed to gender inequalities that continue to persist in academia where women are not advancing at the same pace and with the same success in their academic careers as men (Sato et al., 2021). Identity formation at postgraduate level, is a struggle “marked by (often intersecting) issues of gender, for example, balancing study, work, and home for women students” (Clarence, 2020, p. 55). Moreover, women are under-represented in faculty positions with the gender gap increasing with seniority (Blau & Kahn, 2017) and women face larger struggles to find the place and time to write (Kent et al., 2017). Kent et al. (2017, p. 1203) note “female academics are more likely to seek out support to boost the productivity of their academic writing”. While these issues go beyond the scope of this paper, it is important to note that there are many potential causes for this, such as individual and institutional level discrimination against women (Monroe et al., 2008), and differences in productivity, which could be caused by the unequal distribution of household work and childcare (Blau & Kahn, 2017).

Academia also suffers from horizontal segregation, with women less likely to be studying and working in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) (Deschamps, 2018). Interestingly, representation from STEM disciplines in the writing group was lowest at 8.3%, with 61.1% identifying as allied to humanities and social sciences (HASS) and 22.2% interdisciplinary respectively. English was the first language for 85% of respondents; however, 44% indicated that they were born outside of Australia. While most participants (59%) identified as doctoral students, 31% identified as early career and 9% as mid-career researchers. Not surprisingly, we found mainly female early to mid-career researchers have sought a community with positive writing habits to improve confidence and motivation to write (Kent et al., 2017).

In the following section, we describe the three key discursive themes identified from the qualitative survey data. The quotes presented illustrate the factors present in the writing group that might augment the identity formation of early career researchers.

Navigating the gamut of researcher identity

When participants were asked to describe the elements of a writing group that were beneficial to them, they reported social support, collegiality and common goals. They suggested that being part of a “community” and the opportunity for “hearing about” other “research projects or methodologies” “engenders a sense of belonging”. In this way, being a member of the writing group, and the values, attitudes, and knowledge it included was significant in integrating a new professional identity with participants’ existing self-image (Gopaul, 2011). Writing groups that are built on a sense of belonging and trust “can create an environment where participants discover the implicit narratives of the academy, helping build their academic identity” (Chakraborty et al., 2021, p. 244). Gopaul contends that, “the integration of self-image and professional identity comes to fruition as prospective group members mirror and model the behaviours and broader codes of conduct” of the established members (2011, p. 11). Moreover, Ivanic (1998) suggests, “writing is not some neutral activity which we just learn like a physical skill, but it implicates every fibre of the writer’s multifaceted being” (1998, p. 181). Thus, although writing groups support the structured activity of writing as a focus, germane to our research enquiry was the attendant availability of social capital within such groups, including the subtle rules of what it means to “be” an academic, the doxa (Bourdieu, 1990a). This allows attendees to share and exchange important research knowledge, which in turn may be assimilated by individual attendees, enriching the group.

Not only was “the presence of others writing” important, but participants also indicated that “motivating conversations, sharing tips and advice” were integral to their participation, as the following respondent explains:

Community. Research can be isolating. Engaging with a community of individuals undergoing similar projects engenders a sense of belonging that might otherwise be lacking – working together in structured sessions creates an atmosphere of productivity, which is conducive to getting things done. Engaging with other researchers is a useful way to navigate the gamut of experience as a researcher – I always love hearing about others’ research projects or methodologies, so I tend to find participating in the group to be an intellectually satisfying experience outside of my own research.

In this way, writing was less “isolating” and “conducive to getting things done”. Intellectual satisfaction and “hearing” from others relate directly to exchange – and are understood as a description of both the access to social capital, and its exchange (Bourdieu, 1986). Social capital, in the form of research competencies and strategies, is present in writing groups. The respondent’s passage is suggestive of investment in and belief of being and “engaging” in this field with other researchers; their illusio (Bourdieu, 1990a). Writing groups enable a shift from seeing writing as a private process to becoming a matter of public and shared work through “systematic support and guidance from experienced academic writers” (Maher et al., 2008, p. 274). Thus, working collectively not only supports the process of completing a degree, but positions researchers more strongly for the next step within their academic career (Maher et al., 2008). Not only did participants’ individual notion of identity develop, so too did the identity of the group.

When asked if they would recommend the writing group to others, 96.8% of respondents said that they would, highlighting the group’s importance in keeping “anxiety, fear and despondency” at bay. One participant explains:

Helps with efficiency, motivation i.e. taking action (by attending the group and doing something, anything) breeds motivation and confidence. Whereas inaction breeds anxiety, fear and despondency. Plus, it really helps one understand that we are not alone, we are not the only “crazy” people working (and enjoying working) on a Saturday, and also that this PhD period in our lives will not last forever.

Another described the “community” as “non-threatening”:

I like the structure of [the group]. It is non-threatening and supportive. It’s a perfect set up for those who want a dedicated space to work in independently but still feel connected, feel part of a research community.

As such, the struggle with academic writing is part of an inevitable and necessary process as participants write themselves into academic writing communities (French, 2020). Yet being part of a “research community” while working “independently” on a thesis really strengthened their “confidence” in their ability to write. This “community” consisted of a range of participants from STEM and HASS disciplines and interdisciplinary research backgrounds. Thus, we agree with Cuthbert et al., who found that multi-disciplinary writing groups are “a forum for postgraduates to develop their ‘professional’ academic identity” and sense of self (2009, p. 127). The group’s multi-disciplinary context provided “a level playing field” where participants could approach the writing process as a shared methodology (Cuthbert et al., 2009, p. 137). In this way, professional writing identities are nested inside various disciplinary and institutional Bourdieusian fields, creating what we refer to as a “writing group habitus”. This “both informs and performs their professional capital” (French, 2020, p. 1606). In other words, the collective social capital of the writing group fosters, or makes possible, its exchange among participating members.

The formal structure engenders accountability

The structure of the writing group both reinforced and signalled to members the goal of writing. It signalled the availability of social capital through access to other researchers with similar goals and expectations. When asked why writing within a group helped them to write, participants suggested that accountability and being able to share and resolve writing, or thesis related issues, helped them to focus. The writing group’s formal structure motivated them by giving them a reason to start writing. Scholars have found co-located writing and supportive peer discussions can change the way researchers approach their writing (Kent et al., 2017). Motivating one another to tackle difficult writing tasks is important because writing for publication is a vital activity in the modern university climate (Johnson et al., 2017). Thesis production is no longer the sole requirement for doctoral students; publishing refereed papers is now an expected part of graduating as a competitive researcher (McGrail et al., 2006). Therefore, the formal structure induces group members to undertake personal writing challenges. Further, it clearly demarcates the group’s purpose – underscoring the collective intention to write and henceforth its access to social capital through sharing research and writing strategies, and collectively enacting writing.

In the current study participants suggested “the arrangement” of writing groups provided formal structure. This is in line with Mayer and colleagues who found writing groups can decrease degree completion times with structural and procedural features emerging as being significant in this process (Maher et al., 2013). Other scholars have suggested doctoral students are introduced to ways of writing within the context of the larger community through groups (Tyndall et al., 2019). Researchers have recommended that universities support the development of structured interventions, and regular, ongoing arrangements and formats that can be adapted to meet the needs of the attendees to increase publication outputs (McGrail et al., 2006). For example, Morss and Murray (2001) have noted what stops people from writing is not lack of skill but lack of framework. In our study, participants suggested that the “pomodoro” structure of the day contributed to their “self-control”:

My capacity for self-control substantially increases. The fact of having to do a pomodoro of writing, or other research-related task, while everyone else is doing it as well, motivates me.

As such, the ability to stay focused on writing through the pomodoro technique “substantially” increased their writing capacity. A reduction in “procrastination” occurred through both the requirement to be silent and through “the psychological effect” of writing with others:

I find the group setting helps me get on with writing and editing without procrastination, but I'm not sure if it's due to the group as such, but rather the psychological effect of being in a different room, with different people, not being able to make noise, not resorting to usual distractions like email or further research that I often do at my university desk.

The physical act of being in a “different room” with other people increased productivity. While removing external distractions was important, the main goal of “the group” was writing. In this way, “habitus structures action by defining the limits of that action” (Gopaul, 2011, p. 14). The structure supported academics to develop their own “writing routine”, as the following respondent explains:

The social side of the group, sharing each other’s projects, I feel less isolated. I am more accountable to myself working in this environment, more likely to stick to the writing times (pomodoros). It has helped me develop a writing routine and significantly assisted me in completing my PhD.

As this participant illustrates, hearing about “each other’s projects” contributed to participants’ wellbeing through reducing feelings of isolation and by creating an “energising” workspace. While the participant identifies the “social” aspect of the writing group, their reflections indicate there is far more to this social interaction. This “sharing” of social capital counters isolation and facilitates researcher competencies, such as accountability, writing routines and research strategies. Two respondents explain:

I really like the structure of the day being held externally. I find pomodoros effective – but it’s much harder to be disciplined alone – although I do try! I also find the group energy of focused work energising.

It helps bring discipline and once I have booked into the session, I feel committed. There is something really supportive about meeting with a bunch of other PhDs (and those who have finished too) and working together towards our shared objectives even if we are across disciplines.

The process of booking “the session” and writing with others “towards” “shared objectives” such as being “productive” disrupts the notion that academic writing takes place, or should take place, in isolation (Grant & Knowles, 2000). Instead, writing groups represent opportunities to cultivate time for researchers to write (Beasy et al., 2020) in a contemporary academic climate that may focus too rigidly on writing as a product to the detriment of writing as a pleasure.

Writing competes with a range of other academic activities and can slide down the “to-do” list (Johnson et al., 2017). In addition, a lack of confidence, momentum and motivation can inhibit writing production (Johnson et al., 2017). As emotions can pervade the experience of writing and enhance or diminish confidence (Cotterall, 2013), a “shared” community of practice, connection and empathy with others and a regular “writing routine” significantly assisted participants in “completing” their theses and to flourish as writers. In this way, both physical and intangible attributes of the group structure contributed to participants’ positive experiences, including well-being, through social and emotional support.

Pomodoro breaks facilitate connectedness

Conditions of candidature can negatively affect doctoral candidates’ mental health through social isolation, as doctoral candidates tend to write alone (Wilson & Cutri, 2021) and need to navigate challenging relationships with research supervisors (Chakraborty et al., 2021; Crawford & Probert, 2017). Wilson and Cutri (2021, p. 149) suggest that doctoral students and early career researchers “are vulnerable to psychosocial and emotional stresses associated with being an academic within the highly competitive environment, such as isolation and burnout”. The incidence of mental illness, in particular, anxiety and depression has been found in recent research to be significant in doctoral student cohorts globally (Chakraborty et al., 2021; Lau & Pretorius, 2019). The adherence of universities to a free-market model has had consequences for higher education, as doctoral students face an array of additional personal and professional stressors during their candidature (Beasy et al., 2020). Timeframes for completion are being tightened (Sampson & Comer, 2010), as neoliberal dynamics are “fundamentally restructuring what education does, how it is controlled, and who benefits” (Apple, 2009, p. 1). As Lau and Pretorius (2019, p. 41) point out, clearly there is a need to provide doctoral “students with effective coping strategies to maintain intrapersonal wellbeing”. When participants were asked how beneficial the non-writing-related elements of working in a writing group were, it was found that the breaks between writing were “just as useful” as the writing itself because they provided a “lifeline”. Drawing from Bourdieu’s work (1986), the social capital of the writing group consisted of both cognitive and structural (formal and informal networks) elements, reducing stress and isolation.

The wellbeing of students is recognised as a continual challenge for doctoral programmes (Beasy et al., 2020). A high prevalence of anxiety and depression has been found in graduate students which supports a call to action to expand mental health resources (Evans et al., 2018). Importantly, scholars have highlighted a positive relationship between the formation of writing groups and the wellbeing of doctoral candidates (Verlie et al., 2017). In the current study, respondents suggest the pauses between writing sprints facilitated networking and mentoring opportunities, a platform to discuss writing, and an opportunity to identify solutions to research challenges. These breaks were explained as “key” to participants “coming back” each week. For example, one participant said:

Very useful! I do value the writing more if I had to “pick one”. However, the sense of community is just gold as well. I was never on campus so never had the chance to have those incidental meetings such as corridor conversations (as they say) until coming to [the group], never met with any other PhDs really, so it was just so helpful to speak to others going through the same kind of stuff. Great to have a coffee, chat, provide and give support, share a snack etc.

The “conversations” and “support” received from people going through the “same kind” of experience increased the group’s overall “value”. The breaks between writing were important temporal features that allowed the exchange of social capital that helped counter feelings of isolation (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). Exchange is informal during the breaks, but there were other benefits reported by the participants including the sense that you are “in it together”, as one participant explains:

The sense that we are all in it together, however depending on how stressed I am about particular tasks I find it easier or harder to interact.

This sense of togetherness helped respondents manage how “stressed” they felt. This is important as graduate students are “six times as likely to experience depression and anxiety as compared to the general population” (Evans et al., 2018, p. 282). There is increasing concern about the mental health of doctoral students around workload, supervision processes and student well-being (Waight & Giordano, 2018). The following respondent highlights the significance of talking to others:

Sometimes the break is the perfect chance to talk over something you are stuck on in your writing and you can get good advice or encouragement from others. I find this most helpful with people in a similar discipline as me.

In line with scholars who suggest peers are more helpful in assisting with tackling the basics of academic writing than supervisors (Kumar & Aitchison, 2018), the group provided attendees with support when they were “stuck” in their “writing”. Supervisors, at least notionally, model established researchers with developed professional habitus (Bourdieu, 1984). However, the ability to work alongside doctoral students in the context of writing groups allowed for an informal exchange of capital in ways that perhaps are not possible within the formalised supervisor/student relationship. Moreover, apart from supervisors, there are few people in the doctoral student’s world who are likely to be able to comment or give feedback. This further highlights the importance of establishing collegial relationships that can provide a valuable role in supporting students (Fegan, 2016). Being present in a group facilitated a discursive mode of exchange, which is likely blurred, nebulous and specific to each participant (Bottero, 2010). Nevertheless, the group enabled the cultivation of researcher identity in ways beyond the formal supervisor/student relationship through providing an engaging environment and practices of focused scholarly writing and thinking.

The participants in our study said they enjoyed “finding out about people’s research and conferences”, and to be able to “connect with others who are doing academic work”. One respondent explains:

[It’s] really, really beneficial. It is easier to come if I know that I'm going to see some of the same people (even if I forget their names). Also, everybody is doing some interesting research, and I love that.

When asked if they felt writing in a group helped them to write more than writing alone, the respondents suggested that strong, supportive and positive mentoring relationships made a difference to their sense of wellbeing. This feeling of “belonging” can help counteract negative emotions such anxiety and isolation, that can hinder early career researchers’ academic writing (Chakma et al., 2021). Barry et al. (2018, p. 478) conducted a study that examined psychological distress in doctoral students and found that stress was associated with a perceived lack of progress, and this contributed to “higher levels of depression, anxiety and stress than a normative population”. Students disengaged with their work, were less productive and lost motivation and focus (Barry et al., 2018). Overwhelmingly, in our study, participants said that they felt less isolated through being “part of a supportive group of fellow researchers and writers”. This speaks to the work of Beasy et al. who argue writing together in intensive sessions creates a “sense of comradery … through the sharing of a more substantial experience” (Beasy et al., 2020, p. 12). The following participant explains:

I have found the [writing] group particularly effective in terms of creating community for me since I am a part time student. I actually found them SO effective that I wanted to have them every week, so I started a spinoff and have since taken it overseas. These groups are just SO valuable and they really do create community, they're motivating, they're productive, just fab.

In this way, the sense of “community” experienced by the participants was “effective” in “motivating” them, particularly those who were studying “part time”. This participant evidenced a vigorous commitment to the field, so much so that they established their own writing group. As Mewburn et al. (2014, p. 220) suggest, “anxiety coupled with isolation forms the background to many doctoral students’ experiences of learning to write a thesis”. Accordingly, there is a relationship between positive wellbeing and the integration of people into “a rich network of social associations” (Fleuret & Atkinson, 2007, p. 113). Peer-to-peer learning environments can be empowering, engender agency and provide an alternative support network, particularly due to the access to social capital that such groups foster (Mewburn et al., 2014; Pretorius & Macaulay, 2021). We agree with Leijen and colleagues, that the “supportive” community that the non-writing elements of the group provided may help to counteract studies being discontinued due to “insufficient communication with the community, as well as a lack of sense of belonging” (2016, p.142). Building quality support networks and learning communities is one strategy that has been found to be effective in fostering intrapersonal wellbeing (Lau & Pretorius, 2019). What we are suggesting is that the group was important in providing the emotional and social support needed for academics and doctoral students to undertake and complete a substantial writing project, while providing availability of important doxa of academic identity (Bourdieu, 1990a). The group offered a self-determining, peer-based, flexible space in which to enact writing and as a pleasurable academic activity. ECRs and mid-career researchers who participated benefited through an increase in scholarly productivity and capitalised on a type of “multiple mentoring” that we suggest occurred as doctoral writers gathered regularly at one time and place.

Discussion and conclusion

From a Bourdieusian position, we have found writing groups can support the development of doctoral candidates’ habitus – augmenting and bolstering their identity as academic researchers. The participants in this study continually noted the value and contribution of others present in the writing group, they expressed investment and conviction in the group – illusio – as they learned from those ahead and mentored those from behind (Threadgold, 2018). The writing group’s field provided access to doxa in the form of writing competencies and what it means to be an academic (Bourdieu, 1990b). We need a whole-of-institution approach that focuses not only on academic success but also promotes the wellbeing of doctoral candidates through a shared sense of belonging because “effective pastoral care builds social capital” (Hradsky et al., 2022, p. 5).

We found that participating in a writing group reduced feelings of loneliness, anxiety, and other stress related health issues that negatively impact doctoral candidates’ overall wellbeing (Barry et al., 2018). The friendships that developed acted as a buffer for the isolation commonly felt by students completing a research degree. Significantly, the formal institutional field and its pressure to produce high quality outputs and hierarchical structure, were partially ameliorated through the informal setting of the writing group. As such, embedding writing groups in doctoral education as “vehicles for pastoral care” helps doctoral students to flourish (Hradsky et al., 2022, p. 4).

The attendance of doctoral students through to mid-career researchers allowed for a blurring of normal hierarchical and institutional boundaries – as are present within formal university structures, or fields (Bourdieu, 1984). Such groups can provide doctoral students with a more collaborative environment that is less limited by the power imbalances found in student-supervisor relationships (Hradsky et al., 2022). Access to researchers from a range of experience levels and disciplines contributed to the group’s social capital. Also important was the group’s structure, where we found participants demonstrated conviction and belief – illusio – in the field (Aarseth, 2016; Threadgold, 2018). The interaction during the pomodoro breaks enabled research knowledge, strategies, and techniques to be shared via informal discussions. This contributed to the formation and nurturing of researcher identity through access to the doxa of academic identity and sharing of their habitus in ways that may not have been possible within the more formal hierarchy of the university field (Bourdieu, 1984). As such, when a writing group includes participants with different experiences and skills, the members learn from each other.

To conclude, our findings suggest that the informal activities of the group acted as platforms for conversations that lead to learning. An individual’s learning is developed and the combined value, practice, and habitus (social capital) of the group augments this. While this availability of capital may not have been the initial reason for attending writing groups, it was an important component of the experience for participants. Our study highlights the effectiveness of an informally structured writing group in developing writing skills and academic identity. At a time when researchers face increased pressures to produce quality research outputs, writing groups can offer a mechanism that can benefit both doctoral students and academics through social nourishment, increasing resilience and enhancing reflexive capacities.

Future directions

Writing groups are potential sites of informal pedagogic learning worthy of further exploration, as writing is a fundamental means by which scholarly identities are developed and tested. First, there is a need for further research to uncover agentic and personal factors that shape academic identities. Qualitative studies with a sample of doctoral students and academics having worked with different communities of practice in a variety of contexts and academic cultures, might help to elucidate the role of individual agency in identity construction, as academic identity development in the context of writing is a process. Second, an area worthy of further investigation is the bias towards female participation. Overwhelmingly, attendees of the group identified as female; similar to other studies investigating writing groups – indicating that gender may be a powerful motivator (Bosanquet et al., 2014). Finally, the rise of online writing groups, including hybrid designs that enable face-to-face and online attendance needs further research. Online writing groups have developed in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic. Access to real life interactions during lockdowns for academics may have influenced the use of digital spaces and the ways online communities are developed and this requires further investigation.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge and thank the research participants for their participation in the study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).