Cross-Disciplinary Writers’ Group Stimulates Fresh Approaches to Scholarly Communication: A Reflective Case Study Within a Higher Education Institution in the North West of England

Abstract

For the inexperienced writer it can be difficult to know how to start writing, while for those with some writing experience, it is often seen as a luxury for which there is precious little time to indulge. This reflective case study describes the role of a cross-disciplinary writers’ group, as a writing intervention, within a higher education institution in the North West of England. Established in 2006, the group has always had a librarian as part of its membership and has been informed by the literature on successful writers’ groups. Monthly meetings facilitate ongoing scholarly activity; we share group roles and seek to extend our knowledge of writing practice including writing conference abstracts, constructing an argument, collaborative writing projects, and negotiating authorship. At the inception of the writers’ group, members were seeking to develop their writing portfolio. We are now at various stages of our scholarly development, ranging from early career writers to well published authors and editors. The model of a collaborative writers’ group has provided a winning formula for those wishing to develop scholarly communications as part of their daily activities and has valuable lessons from which academic librarians might learn.

Keywords:

• case reports
• interprofessional communication
• peer group
• publishing
• universities
• writing

Introduction

In 2006, a workshop on writing for publication was held in higher education institution in the North West of England (Race 2006). Stimulated by the discussions at that workshop, a cross-disciplinary group, including a librarian interested in developing her own writing practice, utilized published literature regarding successful writers’ groups to initiate a writers’ group (Lee & Boud 2003; Grant 2006; Murray & Moore 2006).

This reflective case study describes the role of a cross-disciplinary writers’ group within the higher education institution, describing and reflecting upon its structure, content, and ongoing development. Drawing on the findings of a questionnaire survey of current and past group members, it investigates reasons for continued engagement or disengagement with the group. With particular reference to the experiences of the librarian writer within the group, this case study considers the impact of the group on members’ scholarly activities and their understanding and appreciation of writing practices within other disciplines.

Literature Review

As librarianship becomes an increasingly evidence based profession, we rely on individuals to not only access and apply evidence but to generate it. A natural progression from the generation of evidence is the need to publish. However, as reported by Murray and Newton (2008), research projects frequently take place without being published. In 2008, Bradley reported the results of a survey of newly qualified librarians about their experiences of writing and presenting in their early career. Ninety-seven percent of respondents indicated that they would like to develop research, writing, and presenting skills and had the intention to write for journals, newsletters, and peer-review publications (Bradley 2008). Reasons publications are not written may include lack of confidence, momentum, and motivation, as well as the lack of a support system to encourage, develop, and support writers (McGrail et al. 2006). For the inexperienced writer, it can be difficult to know how to start writing, while for those with some writing experience, it is often seen as a luxury for which there is precious little time to indulge.

According to the literature, there are several different writing interventions. These include writing courses (McGrail et al. 2006; Murray & Newton 2008), writing retreats and groups (McGrail et al. 2006; Murray & Moore 2006), as well as “how to write” books (Singer Gordon 2004; Belcher 2009; Smallwood 2009). Writing courses are frequently led by experts and journal editors experienced in writing for publication. Such individuals can cover topics such as selecting a journal and dealing with writers block (McGrail et al. 2006; Tysick & Babb 2006; Fallon 2009). Writing retreats involve removing people from their daily environment and its distractions to provide time, space, and a collegiate environment in which to write (Murray & Newton 2009), while “how to write” books, as their name suggests, explain the steps prospective authors need to take in order to prepare an article for publication. These often include practical advice and exercises to move the reader toward their goal of writing for publication.

The literature demonstrates that writing groups are the dominant model of writing support (Lee & Boud 2003; Grant 2006; McGrail et al. 2006; Murray & Moore, 2006) with their membership often comprising doctoral students (Aitchison 2009), academics and clinicians (McGrail et al. 2006), and, increasingly, librarians (Tysick & Babb 2006). Groups may, or may not, be led by a facilitator (Murray & Moore 2006; Aitchison 2009) and provide a collegiate and supportive environment in which writing is seen as a social activity that benefits from discussion between peers (Murray & Moore 2006). Learning about writing occurs not just from the act of writing but also from reading and providing feedback to others (Aitchison 2009).

The Writers’ Group: Processes and Principles

With a short recess over the summer periods, the cross-disciplinary writers’ group has met on a monthly basis since its inception in 2006 and seeks to extend knowledge of the writing practice through group activities and discussion. It has a dynamic membership encompassing areas as diverse as art and design, academic development, library and information science, and healthcare with meetings following a standard agenda (see Appendix 1). Group members share roles rather than having a single facilitator, taking turns in chairing monthly meetings, submitting writing for peer assessment, or leading an activity. The framework for submitting writing for feedback consists of between two and four A4 pages of text circulated by email to the group prior to the meeting. Comprehensive guidelines for the provision of feedback have also been developed (see Appendix 2).

Group activities have covered many topic areas (see Figure 1), and, as well as revisiting past topics, the group continues to identify and collectively agree new areas of writing for exploration. Ideas are stimulated by writing experiences, based on the content of newsletters for scholarly writers (Belcher 2010) and from books about writing (Singer Gordon 2004; Murray 2005; Murray & Moore 2006; Silvia 2007; Belcher 2009; Smallwood 2009). Each session is led by a group member in areas of particular expertise or interest. For example, the librarian within the group has led sessions on responding to peer reviewers’ comments and on negotiating authorship. The activities aim to provide tools to facilitate writing and to assist in developing a rounded understanding of issues relating to the subject of writing for publication and scholarly purpose.

FIGURE 1 Examples of Group Activities.

Every meeting begins with members recapping on writing completed since the last meeting and finishes with members planning writing priorities for the next meeting.

The Writers’ Group: Reflections on Practice

Since its inaugural meeting in 2006, the writers’ group has enjoyed a dynamic membership. Twenty-two staff members and post-graduate students have engaged with the writers group to date, and all were contacted by email in January 2010 and invited to contribute their reflections in the preparation of this article.

Reflections were received from the current core members of the writing group (n = 6, median of 5.0 years of participation; range 6 months to 5 years) and two members who have discontinued attending the group. Current core members are defined as having attended at least 4 of the 6 most recently held meetings. The reflections provided the following anecdotal evidence relating to engagement with the group, approaches to writing, and the use of writing resources.

One of the initial discoveries made by group members was that while writing was a part of daily activities, these reports, feedback to students, and emails to colleagues were perceived to be different and perhaps easier than writing for publication.

I was once told that either you are a writer or you aren’t, and if you are a writer you just get on with it. I don't think it is that simple.

For the majority of members, the timing of joining the group was integral to initial and continued engagement with the group, coinciding with meeting a personal need to write and/or publish (e.g., at the beginning of a PhD, as an early career researcher, or a desire to publish research which was already completed but not disseminated).

I wanted to develop my writing both for personal reasons/interest but also because there was an expectation that I should be publishing as part of my job.

I was at the beginning of my PhD and felt that some support from colleagues in relation to writing about educational research would be of assistance.

I was aware that I had carried out a systematic review that I wanted to try & get published, but found it difficult to find the internal motivation to get on with this.

Meeting regularity, a standard agenda, and the practical and active nature of the activities have been highlighted as being important elements in engagement with the group. These have not only been acknowledged as key mechanisms to provide impetus and motivation to write, but also in making the “expectations of individuals clear” as to how group members can effectively engage with, and contribute to, the writers’ group.

An important aspect of the group is its role as a support system for members.

I found the group to be welcoming & supportive & feel I have made friends that I can share my interest of writing with.

Over time for me, the group has become an important and integral professional support network.

The writers’ group is perceived by its members to provide a supportive environment fostering commitment and enthusiasm to enable the pursuit of writing goals; a support need perceived to be lacking in individuals’ own disciplines and, hence, sought elsewhere. One member discontinued with the group shortly after joining on the basis that they gained support and actively participated in collaborative writing within their workplace.

All papers that I am writing are co-authored with other colleagues and this allows me to get the necessary feedback on writing.

Despite this, there appears to be a consensus that the supportive element of the group is an important one; one group member noting:

It has helped to develop a really supportive if small community of academics seeking to develop their craft as writers.

There are mixed views on the value of the group in developing new approaches to individuals’ writing processes. Some have identified changes in their writing style with the use of drafts and mind maps on paper and by being less structured and more creative. Others have identified different aspects to the writing process that they had not previously recognized:

I also see reading as part of the writing process now.

Additionally members reported an increase in the use of “nutshelling” (Grant 1999) and writing in different environments.

I particularly liked the “nutshell” approach.

I have used various techniques eg [sic] nutshelling, writing what your project is about in 100 words with students who I am supervising for their projects

I can do it on the train and in a coffee shop (one of my favourite places for it!)

In contrast, a few individuals reflected that they do not always use the tips and techniques they have discovered and, perhaps, have not been as successful in embedding them into their own personal practice as they have in their teaching practice with students.

I’m not sure I always personally use the tips and techniques that we sometimes talk about… (but do in my teaching), but it makes me think about my writing more.

I have learned new things but am not sure how successful I've been at putting them into practice.

However group members reported an increased awareness of writing and publishing opportunities.

The group continues to stretch me, has broadened my appreciation of the different writing practices within disciplines, and challenges my assumptions about writing activity in general.

Through being a group member I think about alternative ways of presenting research and perhaps looking at alternative audiences.

An increased confidence in group members’ ability to write was reported. As time has passed, this confidence has transferred to activities outside the group; one member reporting that since joining the writers group, they are now more inclined to perceive themselves:

…as a competent and capable practitioner with something of value to share…

Fallon (2009) has suggested that academic librarians need to publish in order to establish credibility and enhance visibility among faculty and teaching staff. This was a clear theme reported by group members, the librarian included, in terms of confidence, and in the way in which they believe others perceive them:

[My publication record since joining the group has] led me to be taken more seriously in my academic role.

I can hold my own amongst other professionals who I see as being more influential than I.

I am more confident in asserting my right to be part of a writing team rather than simply providing a supporting role in accessing information. This has increased my profile within the school …

From an organizational perspective, increased levels of confidence in staff can only beneficially enhance its operations, while on a much more tangible level, the impact of the writers group can also be seen through the quantitative, qualitative and diversity of the output of group members. These include conference and poster presentations, peer review publications, and related writing activities including peer reviewing for conferences, professional journals, and funding bodies (see Table 1).

TABLE 1 Outputs From Core Members Since Group Inception in 2006

						Total
	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	Outputs
Book/Book Chapters	1 (Grant, Howarth, & Kneafsey 2006)	—	1 (Etherington 2008; Suckley 2008)	—	—	3
Conference: Oral PresentationsArising from Peer Reviewed Abstracts	4 (Etherington 2006a; Etherington 2006b; Grant, Howarth, Leigh, & Murray 2006; Leigh, Howarth, Grant, & Murray 2006)	3 (Etherington 2007a; Etherington & Spurling 2007; Grant, Leigh, Murray, & Howarth 2007)	2 (Grant, Howarth, Leigh, & Murray 2008; Munro, Smith & Mason 2008)	2 (Hill 2009a; Hill 2009b)	2 (Grant & Hardiker 2010; Munro & Hollingworth 2010)	13
Conference: Poster Presentations	1 (McIsaac 2006a)	2 (Etherington 2007b; Hill 2007a)	—	4 Grant, Hill, Munro, & McIsaac 2009; Hill, McIsaac, Grant & Munro 2009a; Hill, McIsaac, Grant, & Munro 2009b; Munro & Hollingworth 2009)	—	7
Journal Papers: Non-Peer Reviewed	1 (Hill 2006)	2 (Hill 2007b; Hill 2007c)	1 (Murray, Grant, Howarth, & Leigh 2008)	4 (Grant 2009a; Grant 2009b; Grant, Harker, Collin, & Walton 2009; M. J. Grant & Urquhart 2009)	7 (Cumbo & Suckley 2010; Grant 2010a; Grant 2010b; Grant 2010c; Grant 2010d; Hill 2010; Suckley 2010)	15
Journal Papers: Peer Reviewed	3 (Etherington 2006; Grant & Brettle 2006; Howarth, Holland, & Grant 2006)	1 (Grant 2007)	—	2 (Grant & Booth 2009; Munro & Healy 2009)	—	6
Reports	—	1 (Grant, Howarth, Murray, & Leigh 2007)	—	1 (Hardiker & Grant 2009)	—	2
Others (e.g., peer reviewing activity, writing related workshops)	1 (McIsaac 2006b)	1 (McIsaac 2007)	2 (McIsaac 2008a; McIsaac 2008b)	5 (Grant 2009c; LTRN Writers Group 2009; McIsaac 2009a; McIsaac 2009b; Urquhart, Currell, Grant, & Hardiker 2009)	1 (Grant & Booth 2010)	10
Total Outputs	11	10	6	18	10

Peer reviewed publications are a key consideration within academic settings. The UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) (Higher Education Funding Council for England 2008), to be replaced by the Research Excellence Framework (REF) in 2012 (Higher Education Funding Council for England 2009), is instrumental in determining levels of external funding attracted to the organization. This is both in terms of direct funding and, depending on the rating awarded to an organization, its ability to attract research grants. In 2008, the first RAE census since the inception of the writers’ group, the librarian was included in the RAE return for the first time and has since been appointed as Editor of her professional journal (Grant 2009a). With the increased levels and quality of publications since this date, other members of the group are confident that they will be eligible for consideration of inclusion in the REF in 2012.

Discussion

Writing for publication is seen as a vital activity for academics (McGrail et al. 2006) and, at inception, group members were seeking to develop their individual writing portfolio.

Group members believe that the collegial approach to work, the regularity of meeting, and the reporting back to trusted peers has been a key component of their individual success, providing an impetus for them to review and plan their future academic writing, ensuring that writing maintains a high profile role in their day-to-day practice. Similar to the findings of Murray and Newton (2009) with regard to writing retreats, this structured approach to writing has moved academics from individually attempting to pursue their scholarly writing activity into a “community of writers.” Grant and Knowles (2000) have proposed that academic writing needs to be reframed as a “community based collaborative social act,” a proposal certainly borne out by the reflections of the group on the social nature of the group and the increase in collaborative productivity both within and outside the group initiated by group members. While based within a discrete school, the librarian has since developed research ideas with colleagues within the writers group, based within the same faculty and beyond, in terms of co-presenting at regional (Hill et al. 2009a) and international conferences (Grant, Hill et al. 2009) and winning a best poster presentation award (Hill et al. 2009b).

In 2006, Tysick and Babb referred to an unpublished study analyzing 48 American Library Association accredited Masters in Library Science programs, noting that only 10% required students to complete a thesis. Although it was anticipated that this 10% would have an advantage when it came to writing for publication, significantly no dedicated time was allotted to this activity within the curriculum. Tysick and Babb noted that students were expected to independently navigate the transition from author of an assessed piece of course work to author of a peer-reviewed publication. Recent correspondence with colleagues in the United Kingdom suggests that this transition from course work to published work remains a live issue for newly qualified librarians across sectors (Sen 2010; Spring 2010).

Bradley (2008: 733) suggested that a lack of tenure system results in few librarians being “required to publish for advancement” although her survey of newly qualified librarians (n = 31) indicated a strong desire to publish (77.4%).

One of the key aims of the group is to move individual's writing toward publication. Murray (2005) identified lack of time as being the key factor inhibiting writing for academics. Too often, writing becomes low on the list of priorities of academics’ professional tasks; however, being a member of the writers’ group means that members are making an active commitment to the task of writing. Silvia (2007) discussed the notion of allotting time to writing rather than finding time for it. As such, writing is kept as a focus of the academic career and an activity that is protected against other tasks (Murray 2005). Despite this, anecdotal evidence relating to our group attendance does suggest that there are external factors outside individual members’ control that inhibit attendance at meetings such as centralized timetabling for teaching commitments and exam scheduling. Similar problems are likely to be experienced by academic librarians at the start of each academic year, through engagement with service developments and for those involved in rolling programs of information literacy skills training. Although Moore (2003) has suggested that taking writers away from their work commitments has been shown to reduce guilt, fear, and anxiety linked with writing for publication, it appears that this is not always feasible with aspects of the academic's role conflicting with the regularity of writing group meetings. The writers’ group has only gone so far in identifying time to write and making it an activity that is ‘firmly located in the workplace” (Murray & Newton 2008: 31). Another possible solution highlighted by Murray & Moore (2006) is changing writing behavior to include “snacking” as a valid technique of managing scholarly activity. Snacking, an adaptation of free writing, is engaging in short chunks of time for writing, which may last, for example, 20 minutes, rather than attempting extended periods of writing lasting hours or days.

Existing members have reported increased levels of confidence in their ability to write. Part of this may be attributed to a greater familiarity of issues around writing, both from leading and participating in writers’ group activities. It could also be accounted for by members being open to alternative avenues and opportunities to write that has been stimulated by the open activities that form the main part of each meeting. Despite learning about new techniques, writers’ group members acknowledge that not all have become embedded in their everyday activities. Nonetheless, increased writing activities, including collaborative projects within the group (Grant, Hill et al. 2009; Hill et al. 2009a, Hill et al. 2009b), are clearly evident among group members as are ideas for research (Hill 2008) and an award recognizing the quality of work undertaken (Hill et al. 2009b).

The survey also highlighted some unexpected benefits. For example, we have developed an appreciation of the differences in writing practice across disciplines and the opportunities that adopting different perspectives in our writing provide in widening potential audiences; group members recommending alternative places to consider when writing for publication. We have also come to recognize the iterative way in which teaching and learning can take place, an example being that our involvement in developing information literacy skills with our students is now consciously applied to our own writing practice. In 2010, Gannon-Leary and Bent wrote of the role of the library in giving advice, support, and mentoring to researchers in their writing for publication and briefly alluded to the benefits of library staff writing to facilitate greater empathy for researchers during the writing process. However, the shift from teacher to user of writing skills evidenced by the cross-disciplinary writers’ group echoes the introduction of evidence based practice in which librarians first supported this activity in others and then began to apply these techniques to their own practice.

Encouragement to write has meant that we have a better critical awareness of sources available to help generate our ideas. We have developed a greater linguistic understanding and the ability to critically appraise and evaluate writing both within the group and as part of our professional practice in scrutinizing academic writing practice. This latter activity has included opportunities to review refereed and non-refereed journal articles and publications as well as conference abstracts (Grant 2009c; McIsaac 2009a; McIsaac 2009b).

The Writers’ Group: Beyond These Walls

The model of the writers’ group has proved to be a winning formula, one that we are seeking to disseminate both within the educational research discipline (Hill et al. 2009a; Hill et al. 2009b) and our own professional groups (Grant, Hill et al. 2009). The writers’ group has, and continues to meet, a desire for support and direction in establishing a writing portfolio that, for whatever reason, group members perceived could not be gained elsewhere. For members to continue to engage with the group, the timing and relevance of their initial interactions has proven critical; it was not something that could be determined as good for an individual by an external source, but arose from a desire to meet a need within the individual. The practical and structured nature of the meetings ensures that members acquire a sense of momentum and achievement from participation and contribution to the group, with a sense of responsibility, ownership, and friendship with other group members. Since beginning to disseminate the experiences of the writers group (Grant, Hill et al. 2009; Hill et al. 2009a; Hill et al. 2009b) other institutes have expressed an interest in emulating the success of the group. This has included a potential international collaboration with the University of South Australia (Faulkner 2010). Elsewhere, the University of Liverpool is looking to develop an intellectual exchange, learning from the writers’ group experience while sharing their own experiences of a writers’ retreat (Kahn 2009a; Kahn 2009b; University of Liverpool 2010). It is hoped that the retreat would provide a structured, intense, and uplifting period away from the distractions of work in which group members can dedicate time to their writing. It will include group activities, as well as time to focus on dedicated writing projects and for group members to provide and receive instant feedback to/from colleagues. The success of events organized by the writers’ group are generating an increasing amount of interest and prestige, leading to invitations to lead cross-organizational writing events (LTRN Writers’ Group 2008) and external events (Grant & Booth 2009; LTRN Writers’ Group 2009).

Conclusion

In addition to facilitating individuals to access and apply evidence within the library and information sector, for evidence based library and information practice to become fully integrated into the day-to-day activity of library and information workers, require the ongoing generation and dissemination of evidence in its broadest sense. Writing for scholarly purpose is a crucial factor for the achievement of this goal. The model of a collaborative writers’ group has proven to be an effective mechanism for those seeking to engage and integrate writing as part of their daily activities.

At the inception of the writers’ group members were seeking to develop their writing portfolio. A structured writing framework has enabled new knowledge, confidence, and competence in scholarly writing, evidenced by a collective publication record. An appreciation for, and understanding of, a variety of discipline-based writing practice and the implications of scholarly writing activity for our teaching practice illustrate some of the unexpected benefits gained from a writers’ group. We are now at various stages of our scholarly development, ranging from early career writers to published authors and, for the librarian, Editor of her professional journal.

Group meetings frequently generate a set of resources around which activities are organized. These are in the process of being digitized to act as a resource for others wishing to emulate the success of our group and can be accessed at http://www.edu.salford.ac.uk/her/ltrn/writers/

Appendix 1: Standard Agenda

Writers’ Group

    Agenda

    First Thursday of each month

     12.00 pm–1.30 pm

• Update on writing progress from members.    (20 mins)

• Feedback session: an opportunity for one member to receive feedback on a piece of work circulated prior to the meeting. Feedback to follow the “ground rules.”     (20 mins)

• Open item: group discussion/activity facilitated by a member of the group.     (30 mins)

• Action planning: members identify their writing plans for the next month.     (15 mins)

• Agree Agenda and Chair for next meeting.     (5 mins)

Appendix 2: Writing Feedback Protocols

Writers’ Group

Writing Feedback Protocols

• Respond to the ideas on the page

• Aim for a “conversation” with the writer: active listening, attending, and focusing

• Find the overall direction of the work

• Be open, responsive, and flexible to the writer's response

• Who is the intended audience? “Stand in their shoes”

• Grammar and spelling is none of your business!

• Consider principles of academic writing and style

• Find what you like about the writing and praise

• Ask questions

• Adopt a solution-orientated approach—suggest ways to improve/change aspects

• Be specific—give examples, tell a story, I remember a time when…

• Reflection: What have you learned from…

  • The writing?

  • The feedback process?