Academic writing for publication: The experience and facilitation of liminality for developing higher levels of scholarliness

ABSTRACT

Academic writing for publication is a challenging process for which academics are often ill-prepared. Being consistently successfully published in peer-reviewed publications is one measure of academic worth and scholarliness. Becoming a scholar is a rite of passage, an iterative process with liminal spaces, thresholds, transitions and transformations, which cannot be achieved without support, guidance and mentorship. We used collaborative autoethnography to describe the types of liminality we encountered as managers, facilitators, critical readers and editors of academic writing for publication capacity development events. We identified three facilitation features: that facilitators act as agents of disruption, that they provide a generative and safe holding space, and that balance and mutuality are foundational elements. Application of these three features by facilitators, supervisors or managers could contribute to providing transformational writing spaces and support at various university levels during the iterative process and journey of scholarship development.

KEYWORDS:

• Writing for publication
• academic writing
• scholarship
• scholarliness
• liminality
• threshold experience

Introduction

Becoming a scholar is a challenging process. Scholarliness, or ‘intellectual craftmanship’ (Burns, 2012; Watson, 1994), implies rigorous methods, systematic exposition, in-depth analysis and evaluation, and the highest level of critical engagement and reflexivity. A graduate qualification is only an indication of research competence but does not necessarily prepare a student for the type of scholarly writing required for publication (Boughey, 2023). This high-level skill set must be developed through personal and professional investment of energy and time.

Publication plays a pivotal role as a globally recognised indicator of academic identity (C. Kapp & Albertyn, 2008; Lee & Boud, 2003). It is an academic rite of passage which involves iterative experiences of liminality or threshold crossing with which many struggle (Aitchison, 2010, p. 8; Boughey, 2023). Scholarly writing for publication is therefore a form of identity work for aspiring academic writers in universities. We consider academic identity here as a contextual collection of ever-evolving ‘skills, knowledge, attitudes and practices’ (Murray, 2017; Purdy & Walker, 2012) that contribute to the idea of being a scholar. Beech (2011) explains that identity work entails ‘significant disrupt[ion] [of] one’s internal sense of self or place within a social system’. We view liminality here as a dialogical, interactional experience of writing practice, encountered in universities, which transforms a student, researcher or academic into a scholar, based on the quality and quantity of publications in high-level, high-impact peer-reviewed publications.

Since the professional and identity investment of academics and researchers in their disciplinary and methodological spaces and their high level of expertise are demonstrated through publication, scholarly writing for publication must be intentionally developed and nurtured. Therefore, universities often invest resources to ensure their staff and postgraduate students who write for academic publications are adequately trained and supported. However, the journey from researcher to published author is often fraught with rejection, insecurity and disappointment. The required resilience and tenacity cannot be achieved without support, guidance and mentorship.

Though there are many types and styles of writing support presented at different levels in universities, in this article we focus only on what we refer to as ‘academic writing for publication’ (AWfP). We present retreat events (virtual, in-person and asynchronous) at universities for students and academics who want to craft scholarly articles or book chapters for review and publication. These events can include participants from a variety of disciplines across the university spectrum or be restricted to one specific discipline. Requirements for participation in the retreat specify completed research and preparation by reading several articles in the targeted journal to be aware of the current debate and discipline-specific conventions. As facilitators, we lead the writer-participants (WPs) through the AWfP process, following an experiential learning approach that is centred on targeted brief input and iterative, personalised one-on-one real-time critical feedback on their work as it is being produced, usually during a five-day writing retreat. Although the value of peer support in academic writing development (French, 2018; Wilmot, 2018) is acknowledged, we adapted an earlier iteration of our retreat that included peer review. In this AWfP, participants get time and opportunity to focus on the crafting and recrafting of their article for publication. The writing support work we describe here is provided by AWfP facilitators situated outside the relationship of ‘intense intimacy’ (Lee & Murray, 2015) between supervisors and students. However, similar principles may apply to supervision or other forms of support needed during writing for publication development (Boughey, 2023; Hey-Cunningham et al., 2021). As external critical readers, we provide an objective view of participants’ work through a linear reading process, which is similar to the review process.

In this article we describe the liminal spaces we observed during these AWfP events and identify three requirements or features essential for the facilitation of such initiatives. We argue that researchers and academics need more than just methodological and disciplinary knowledge to move through the rite of passage to become a scholar, specifically AWfP. The three identified features could guide facilitators, mentors or supervisors in holding liminal spaces for WPs to enable the productive and constructive personal and professional transformation of academics and researchers on the continuing and iterative scholarship journey.

Literature review

The concept ‘liminal’ (from the Latin limen for threshold) is widely used to describe experiences of re-arranging in-betweenness, transition and transformation – a ‘social limbo’ when daily reality is suspended and a disruption of self takes place (Scaratti et al., 2021). Turner describes liminality as a state of being ‘betwixt and between’ experienced during social rites of passage or ‘life-crisis rituals’ which result in unprecedented insights and carry transformative capacity (V. W. Turner, 1967, 1980, 1964).

Three stages in any rite of passage have been identified: the pre-liminal, the liminal, and the post-liminal (V. Turner, 1967; van Gennep, 2019 [1909]). The first is a stage of isolation and separation, where one’s previous identity is stripped away – a symbolic death. This is followed by a second in-between state of transition, immersion and absorption (Purdy & Walker, 2012) – a state outside of definition (Beech, 2011), often involving tests of some kind. It culminates in a third stage of incorporation or re-entry (‘re-aggregation’, in Turner’s parlance), in a new state or status, thus a symbolic rebirth. The individual now adopts a new identity position, a new way of life, and is expected to conform to new norms (Beech, 2011). Liminality can facilitate social creativity (Skjoldager-Nielsen & Edelman, 2014), but is also an ephemeral space of destabilising, disruptive vulnerability, precarity, doubt, anxiety, discomfort, confusion and uncertainty.

Liminality is often called (following Bhabha, 1994) a third space of potentiality and performativity. Skjoldager-Nielsen and Edelman (2014) ask whether Turner’s work can be used to consider the witnessing of a performance, or ‘transformative experiential event’, as a force for change and transformation. They note, following Fischer-Lichte (2008), that there is a potency to the radical concept of simultaneous destabilising and self-generating co-presence and energetic exchange in an unrepeatable and unpredictable moment (Skjoldager-Nielsen & Edelman, 2014). In the academic context, AWfP is such a performative act, a threshold experience that gives access to the liminal experience of not-knowing and becoming, facilitated through the reflective witnessing of a critical reader. AWfP is an experience in which knowledge transfer (transition, reuse, adaptation – see Donahue & Foster-Johnson, 2018) takes place, but also in which there is potential for personal and professional learning transformation (Mezirow, 2000). Håkansson Lindqvist (2018) describes this transformation process as both a not-knowing and an unlearning occurrence, which is elsewhere also called rumination work or thinking-doing-making work (Tesar & Arndt, 2020).

There are various intersecting liminalities that operate in academic writing contexts, which Sunstein (1998) describes as ‘soft and mutable contact zones’ where people can take risks. She classifies them as liminality of articulation and textuality, pedagogical, spatial, cultural, professional and institutional liminality. We adapted and expanded Sunstein’s types to use as an analytical framework.

Liminality entails three simultaneous processes (Scaratti et al., 2021). These are phronesis (practical wisdom), praxis (action) and aporia (confrontation with paradox or uncertainty), which emerge co-incidentally when ‘the training setting itself becomes a liminal space … creating the conditions of an in-between zone among the daily course of action in which people are involved’ (Scaratti et al., 2021). These processes afford liminality to provide conditions for dialogue between self and social identity, allowing for both centrifugal and centripetal perspectives (following Bakhtin et al., 1981) – simultaneous internalisation from society and externalisation of one’s own experiences. These dialogical processes facilitate liminal practices, like experimentation (reshaping of voice and identity), reflection (reviewing and questioning lived experience) and recognition (constituting a new sense of identity, place and belonging) (Beech, 2011; Scaratti et al., 2021). The requirements for such liminal experiences are ‘a desire for mutual listening, the willingness to let oneself go to imaginations and openings, which postulates a context of sufficient serenity and investment, as well as the availability and sustainability of the actors’ (Scaratti et al., 2021).

The concept of liminality is related to the thresholds concept approach to learning (Land et al., 2014), which advances that certain learning experiences are conceptual gateways in a liquid space. These authors use the metaphors of a tunnel (dark and foreboding, loss of direction, obscured progress, uncertainty about the light at the end), conceptual bottlenecks, and jewels (epiphanies, moments of breakthrough understanding) to describe the liminal learning experience as a transformative state where reformulation of the individual’s meaning frame occurs, accompanied by shifts in their ontology and subjectivity (Land et al., 2014). They note such liminal learning experiences are discursive, transformative, integrative and irreversible (Land et al., 2014; Meyer & Land, 2005). The final accomplishment is learning to negotiate the underlying epistemic game, to attain epistemic fluency (Land et al., 2014) in a specific discipline or skill set, which has the potential to create an active, dynamic pursuit of understanding of difficulties and ways to master them (Cousin, 2008; Land et al., 2014). They note this process can be experienced as unsettling, as a loss or relinquishment, and the crucial qualities necessary for passage through liminal learning experiences are patience and perseverance (Land et al., 2014).

It is not surprising that ‘requirements for productive academic writing can produce anxiety’ (Strickland et al., 2023), which can create writing blocks, burnout, and emotional or mental health problems. Boice (1993, 1994) and Boice and Jones (1984) cite several common reasons for academic writing anxiety and underperformance: lack of time, external censors and pressures, fear of failure, evaluator anxiety, impatience, perfectionism, demotivating early experiences, procrastination, personality style, and adverse mental states. Boice and Jones (1984) and Strickland et al. (2023) have made significant contributions, using cognitive and behavioural psychology and mindfulness practices, to providing guidance for breaking through or avoiding these challenges, while Baker et al. (2023) identified three enabling behaviours essential to successful academic writing: creating effective relationships with time (‘writing moments’), technology (‘writing tools and writing flow’), and space (‘nomadic writing’). Our research also captures how these behaviours are enabled during the AWfP events.

Methodology

The context of this study is AWfP capacity development initiatives based on an experiential action learning approach (see C. A. Kapp et al., 2011). We used a collaborative autoethnography approach due to the advantages of multivocality and accessing the depth of experience of AWfP facilitation (Hernandez, 2021). All four researchers have been involved in the facilitation of AWfP initiatives at South African universities for the past 15 years in various roles: Belinda as an institutional driver of AWfP capacity development initiatives, Christel and Ruth as AWfP retreat facilitators and critical readers, and Ella as language editor. We draw on our different perspectives of facilitating AWfP events to contribute to a greater understanding of the uniqueness of AWfP and its facilitation (Ellis et al., 2011).

In line with guidelines of Hernandez et al. (2017), we met regularly on a virtual platform during the planning phase (we are located in different towns in South Africa) to ensure we were clear about the aims, procedure, theoretical focus, and methodology. We used complementary and overlapping theories of liminality to provide a fitting syncretic, meta-conceptual, multi-disciplinary and transversal perspective. We collectively decided on questions to guide our reflections. Our four final questions were: what liminal experiences did we observe during our AWfP events?; what were our reactions to these experiences?; what facilitation strategies did the experiences evoke in us?; and what were our observed effects of these implemented strategies?

Each of us individually wrote reflections before sharing them with the group a week before our in-person meeting. We familiarised ourselves with the content of all the reflections before the meeting for analysis. We decided on a collective deductive thematic analysis of data as the research question that guided the study focused on how to hold the liminal spaces in scholarly development during AWfP. Since we were a team of coders and needed consistency in our interpretation of the data, we used a codebook that could increase the reliability of our coding (Braun & Clarke, 2019). To provide a priori codes, we developed an analytical framework and codebook based on theories of the phases of liminality (V. Turner, 1967) and Sunstein’s types of liminality (1998). Data analysis proceeded collaboratively with discussions where clarity was needed.

Results and discussion

Results are presented here according to the three phases and different types of liminality and our collective reflection on our learning through the collaborative autoethnography research experience. The references for the different AWfP facilitators are indicated as critical reader (CR), institutional manager (IM) and language editor (LE).

Liminal phases of AWfP capacity development events

During the preparatory or pre-liminal phase WPs should be ready, not only on a personal, emotional and professional level, but also in terms of their motivation, to produce scholarly writing of high quality They should not feel coerced by supervisors or line managers or ‘be forced into liminality but must enter authentically because they themselves want to be there’ (IM). ‘WPs should also know the AWfP event and facilitators do not profess to give a quick fix, easy outcome or an easy route to satisfying KPAs or to career-focused incentives’ (CR). ‘Realistic expectation management is important’ (IM) and the quality of institutional process management of AWfP events determines the eventual outcomes and outputs. This ensures continuity from adequate preparedness and realistic expectations before the event, to post-event follow-up, successful submission to a journal, providing institutional support after submission and publication, and maintaining a sense of continued scholarly community after the AWfP event to contribute to the learning being a transformative experiential event (Skjoldager-Nielsen & Edelman, 2014).

Insufficient orientation, preparation, planning and time management often result in WPs transferring their own writing responsibilities onto facilitators and editors, with the false expectation that facilitators must engage in some form of ‘mopping up’ (LE) exercise to make the writing submission-ready or publication-worthy. Such an approach can have serious consequences in terms of intellectual property rights, copyright, and research ethics if not addressed early and appropriately. Some WPs ‘might be keen and may work hard, but then come to an event with inadequate material’ (CR), which can be due to a lack of or poor quality of supervision. WPs then enter the AWfP event ‘set up for failure’ (IM), with data of an inferior quality or insufficiently novel data for publication. ‘Poor quality research work may then end up being much ado about nothing in an AWfP context’ (CR).

Institutional organisers of AWfP events must be realistic: ‘Institutions often prefer to think of value-for-money as determined by the number of people attending’ (CR) and think more WPs will mean a greater return on the institution’s fiscal investment. This approach is not conducive to creating the most optimal environment for high-quality outputs or the development of writing capacity. ‘Insufficient screening of WPs’ (IM) is a danger, especially when AWfP events are ‘too open and accessible, allowing anyone to participate without the necessary advance preparation’ (IM). This can result in WPs who are not fully ready for the liminality of an AWfP experience and then either succumb to debilitating anxiety referred to by Strickland et al. (2023) or are unable to follow through with the completion of a publishable output.

It is problematic if the person organising the AWfP event is not an experienced scholar and published writer in their own right, as it is then difficult for them to gain the trust and respect of WPs, to adequately motivate and support them on their writing journey and to speak with authority and authenticity about the AWfP experience (IM). An institutional facilitator should ‘be able to strike a fine balance between being a policeman and giving WPs freedom; setting initial boundaries, restrictions and expectations and continually following up; being a responsive sounding board and an institutional accountability partner; being assertive and hanging back’ (IM).

During the liminal phase we follow the various types of liminality as indicated by Sunstein (1998). In terms of spatial and physical liminality, it is important to create a beneficial writing space (‘comfortable and nurturing’ (IM), ‘quiet, with enough personal space’ (CR)), away from other mundane everyday spaces, distractions and work responsibilities; in line with the suggestion by Baker et al. (2023). ‘WPs must be away from home and family, as well as from the normal workplace’ (LE). ‘Writing on campus does not work, there must be a physical other place where the liminal experience happens for it to be beneficial and regarded with the appropriate seriousness’ (IM).

The writing experience can be physically challenging for many WPs, who may struggle with writing in a space shared by others. ‘To be quiet, to sit down and write are really taxing for some WPs’ (CR). But once they break through the initial wall of discomfort, they emerge with a sense of achievement, confidence and resilience, knowing they can replicate the learning in future. The physical group experience is usually highly valued as it facilitates a sense of community, group safety and scholarly identity.

Temporal liminality is a challenge for both WPs and facilitators. WPs, especially novice writers, often underestimate how much time is necessary for writing and editing and how many drafts are required before their product is of a sufficiently high quality to be submitted for peer review. ‘Time management is one of the most important challenges faced by WPs … time must be set aside for planning, writing, and rewriting, thus the normal routine of both domestic and working life is disrupted’ (LE). For example, WPs are often unaware they must know which journal they are targeting before they enter the formal space of the AWfP event, failing which they will waste valuable writing time on doing this preparatory work during the event. WPs must familiarise themselves with the chosen journal’s editorial conventions and prescriptions, and the readership’s level of expertise and interests. ‘This is a time-consuming exercise that should be done beforehand. Advance planning is also crucial and if they have done their spadework beforehand they can be far more productive at the event’ (LE).

Facilitators, on their part, must balance the amount of time they can allocate to each WP, being constantly aware of each WP’s individual needs and progress. Slow or delayed submissions from WPs can disrupt the pace of the event and may result in bottlenecks requiring expert juggling by facilitators to ensure optimal feedback to all WPs. This is also affected by the number of WPs at the event.

Once they start producing a written text, WPs enter a space of articulation and textual liminality which can relate to aspects of writing like using appropriate scholarly language, writing in a language other than their mother tongue, and attending to spelling, grammar and punctuation conventions. The LE noted that writers’ ‘lack of attention to detail reflects a careless attitude. It makes journal and book editors and reviewers wonder about the meticulousness and trustworthiness of the research itself’. WPs must often learn to become comfortable with the genre-specific scholarly style of AWfP, which differs greatly from the more laborious exposition style of theses and dissertations. AWfP requires brevity and clarity of exposition, writing with simplicity while communicating complex ideas or findings, effectively maintaining the flow of an argument through a prescribed formal structure, and writing in inclusive and accessible language. WPs must learn how to ‘have a clear message formulated as an argument, the difference between a title and an argument, the difference between the aim of their research study and the aim of the article; also that they cannot just cut and paste from their thesis or dissertation to write an article’ (CR).

It may create a sense of professional liminality in both WPs and facilitators if the WPs ‘disregard or take lightly the journal’s guidelines’ (LE), since, if not followed, this is a crucial obstacle to getting published. One of the CRs noted she experiences a sense of professional liminality when ‘a WP clearly has not applied the principles we convey and then expects me to fix the work’, while the LE said that ‘academics might feel they are above menial editorial tasks and the “hired hand” should do the work. This I find offensive’. It is challenging for facilitators when WPs enter into the AWfP event space expecting it to be an ‘easy way out of the hard work of crafting scholarly writing worthy of publication’ (CR). Other frustrations for facilitators relate to working with ‘a know-it-all who does not accept my feedback’ (CR), which is often encountered when dealing with novice WPs who had just completed their master’s or doctoral thesis. The facilitator must then hold the space for this person to ‘move from the high of having recently obtained a postgraduate qualification, to realising they are only a novice and as yet unpublished author’ (CR) and ‘realising they once again find themselves at the bottom of the heap, needing to work their way up, which for many is a hard crash down to earth’ (IM). WPs who are overly invested in their ideological or methodological positionings and not ready to conform to new norms (Beech, 2011) may ‘find it particularly hard to understand they have to accept critique and must adhere to rigorous publication standards ‒ just because “it is how I feel” does not mean it is above judgment and critique ‒ they are often too invested in arguing and are therefore unable to make an argument’ (IM). This uncertainty or aporia is part of the process of liminality and provides the conditions for dialogue as noted by Scaratti et al. (2021). One CR spoke about dealing with WPs ‘who do not accept the structure and requirements of the conventional scientific article and want to write in a way I know will not be accepted by a scientific journal’. This attitude causes discomfort for the facilitator, who must balance the responsibility of guiding the WP to produce a publication-worthy article and affirming their sense of conviction, freedom and independence about the subject and topic.

Pedagogical liminality is another common experience in the AWfP process, for example ‘if someone must find a new angle for their work because there is an indication their article lacks novelty’ (CR). The facilitator then needs to find the right approach ‘to help them find a novel angle for the article … the WP must leave behind the original idea and may not know how to change it to create novelty’ (CR). The dialogical process mentioned by Beech (2011) confirms this reflection and recognition for the constitution of something new. This can be an overwhelming experience and may cause anxiety. One CR noted, ‘I must continually read the room to provide the emotional safe space for WPs to do the high-level thinking required of this genre’. Discernment about which approach to use with each person at which phase of their writing journey is essential because that is often the triggering event that can lead to learning insights and transformation but can also cause WPs to disengage and give up, if not handled sensitively and with sufficient finesse.

One of the CRs commented, ‘I must emulate the skills of higher-level thinking to help the WPs move from the descriptive level where they feel safer’. To do that, facilitators must ‘give detailed constructive, realistic, honest feedback in a way that does not demotivate WPs but also does not give them unrealistic expectations’. Consequently, expert listening skills are required, ‘to identify discrepancies between the WPs’ written and spoken words’ (CR). The LE stated, ‘I make sure the WPs know they don’t necessarily have to agree with me, which makes them feel safe and in control of their work’. One of the CRs noted, ‘I must stand back and let the WP take responsibility and also affirm and conform to their writing and learning style’ and ‘the WP needs to own and direct the narrative of the article; I must just be a sounding board’. Another CR commented, ‘The unique skill I bring is a meta-view of the work, looking at the structure, coherence and flow as the WP crafts their work appropriately for the article genre’. Tesar and Arndt (2020) refer to rumination work or the thinking-doing-making work which takes place in both the WPs and the facilitators and illustrates the mutual listening noted by Scaratti et al. (2021).

Closely linked to pedagogical liminality is the cultural liminality often experienced during AWfP processes. WPs must adapt to a new style of scholarship culture, which demands that ‘they cannot sit passively taking in information, but the learning must take place through active doing’ (CR). WPs must be dissuaded from ‘the expectation that the AWfP event is about a critical reading “service” and they can just submit their rough draft without themselves applying any of the principles they have learned’ (CR).

The last sub-theme is emotional liminality, which runs through the whole AWfP process as the WPs ‘learn to lean into the discomfort’ (IM). This is especially difficult for WPs who ‘struggle to handle critique, take it personally, and respond as if it is about them rather than the work’ (IM). WPs experience a range of emotions which Meyer and Land (2005) consider unsettling but necessary for passing through the liminal space. In these situations facilitators must be observers, reflecting mirrors, sounding boards and guides, while managing their own fluctuating affective states. One of the CRs explained, ‘Initially WPs are nervous, often flustered, quite apologetic or overly explaining that they are novices, so I, as the facilitator/critical reader, must help them, be understanding and not be too critical in the beginning as their first reaction often is a sense of panic’. Over the course of the event this approach usually progresses to breakthroughs and even epiphanies (Land et al., 2014), a moment of ‘joyfulness when they experience the satisfaction of having progressed and sometimes for the first time realise what the scholarly contribution of their article is’ (CR); ‘when the new idea emerges, something breaks open in the mind of the WP and exciting possibilities arise … all the grappling and internalising of their work gives them confidence’. This array of emotions confirms the process of learning to attain epistemic fluency noted by Land et al. (2014) and can signify an emancipatory moment for WPs who transition successfully (Lee & Murray, 2015).

The post-liminal phase occurs when the WPs leave the space of the formal event and return to their normal daily routines and responsibilities, which may be difficult to reconcile with the focused writing to which they dedicated themselves exclusively during the AWfP event. Continued support and after-care is essential for the momentum of the event to be maintained. ‘With no support system to help them over the threshold once the personal face-to-face communication is over’ (LE) WPs often fail to see the AWfP process through with submission to their targeted journal. The AWfP event must ‘prepare them for the iterative process of writing, editing, submission, reviewing and resubmitting not only during the formal event but also afterwards’ (CR); adopting a new way of life (Beech, 2011). It is important that WPs should receive preparatory input about what to expect from editors and reviewers of journals. One of the CRs noted, ‘I emphasise I am just one layer in the multiple review process, with the aim of preparing them for the sometimes-harsh comments of journal editors and reviewers’. For WPs who did not have a pleasant experience with their research supervisors and examination process, the prospect of journal editors’ and reviewers’ feedback can be especially daunting and anxiety-provoking.

Collaborative reflection on our collective learning

Our reflections confirmed the inherent iterative nature of liminal experiences throughout the growth and development of scholars and the need for facilitators to embrace, emulate and normalise this element of scholarly evolution. We identified three facilitation features needed to successfully hold liminal spaces for WPs to enable their productive and constructive transformation during AWfP initiatives. First, facilitators must act as agents of disruption as they prepare WPs for the sometimes-hostile real world of academic scholarship review processes. Facilitators must set the bar and expectations beyond the WPs’ sense of personal knowledge and identity. This may elicit discomfort and anxiety but can also create resilience if managed effectively. Meta-cognitive skills development at this level is essential yet challenging, especially for novice WPs. This discomfort could trigger movement from the descriptive level of writing to a higher conceptual level. Facilitators must be able to continually apply discernment to judge the progress of WPs and to provide the right feedback at the right time. There is no memorandum that facilitators can follow; each individual WP’s experience is unique. Listening skills, genuine interest, honesty, and respect for each individual are therefore essential attributes for facilitators.

Second, facilitators must provide a generative and safe holding space for WPs. Our experiential learning approach to AWfP facilitation provides a combination of community-of-practice style group cohesiveness and support, scaffolded bite-size chunks of facilitated input, the opportunity for WPs to iteratively re-craft work in a private space, followed by immediate individualised feedback and discussion with critical readers. All of this is provided in a contained, focused yet relaxed environment conducive to the optimalisation and application of the knowledge conveyed and learning through the creative practice of writing. If this enabling approach is facilitated by experts outside the WPs’ daily work and study context, it may provide a generative and safe space for experimentation, growth and transformation and circumvent the pitfalls associated with the intimacy of a supervisory relationship and the competitiveness and rivalry often experienced as part of academic workspaces.

Third, maintaining a balance between the first and second factors and ensuring mutuality between the WP and facilitator should be the foundation of the transformational AWfP experience.This requires sensitivity to the levels of experience, individual learning styles and specific needs of WPs, while maintaining a constant awareness of the importance of liminality for their transformational journey. As the facilitator views the WPs’ work from a meta-perspective, they must emulate the processes of higher-level thinking in their engagement with and feedback to WPs as they act as reflecting witness and critical thinking partner on each WP’s scholarly journey. We agreed that more is required of AWfP facilitators than is the case for any other academic or research capacity development training workshops as the learning approach is individualised, experiential and experimental. This approach is the key to successful AWfP scholarship training events: when focused, individual input triggers personal and professional transformational experiences, which in turn translate into high-quality scholarly outputs.

Conclusion

The rite of passage to become a scholar is an iterative process with liminal spaces, thresholds, transitions and transformations. We described the different types of liminality encountered by WPs and facilitators during our AWfP capacity development events, which are structured around experiential learning principles. Findings could be useful to any facilitators of AWfP such as supervisors, managers or research development professionals. We found three main requirements to support and enable WPs’ safe passage through the various liminal spaces they encounter during their development as scholars.

• Facilitators should be agents of disruption and liminality while also guiding WPs through these spaces.

• There should be a sense of mutual trust and respect, shared responsibility and accountability for WPs to produce publication-worthy scholarly work.

• Facilitators should continuously apply high levels of sensitivity and discernment.

In this article, we approached this AWfP process from a facilitators’ perspective. Further research that explores WPs’ experiences of liminality during AWfP events can provide more insight and aid the development of scholarliness during AWfP interventions.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Belinda du Plooy

Belinda du Plooy (NDip PRM, DLitt et Phil) has worked in higher education for 30 years in various academic, research and managerial capacities. She is currently employed as Senior Manager: Engagement at Nelson Mandela University in Port Elizabeth-Gqeberha, South Africa.

Ruth Albertyn

Ruth Albertyn (PhD) is an associate professor affiliated to the Centre for Higher and Adult Education and the Business School at Stellenbosch University. She is involved in research and capacity development at various higher education institutions and has received National Research Foundation recognition for her contribution to postgraduate research development.

Christel Troskie-de Bruin

Christel Troskie-de Bruin (DEd) is an independent research and development consultant. She has been involved in research and scientific writing capacity building at South African Higher Education institutions for the past 20 years.

Ella Belcher

Ella Belcher (BA Hons, UED) is a freelance copy editor with more than 30 years’ experience in the field of academic writing. She is a member of the SA Professional Editors’ Guild.