Writing Groups

The low graduation rates in postgraduate education have been related with the difficulties students meet when having to write their dissertations. Departing from a conception of writing as a social and situated practice, this qualitative study expands the focus to what doctoral candidates do in order to complete their dissertations. We explore the positive influence that relationships with peers have on the dissertation process through the analysis of 20 in-depth interviews with candidates and recent graduates in Linguistics and Education PhD programs. Results show that social relations facilitate access to information and procedural and practical knowledge related with different aspects of the doctoral research. Based on these results, we suggest that institutions should implement actions that encourage students´ participation in groups that promote peer interaction, especially during the last period of the doctoral research and writing process.

La escritura juega un rol fundamental en los estudios de posgrado no solo porque puede determinar su finalización sino también por su relación intrínseca con la adquisición y elaboración de conocimientos disciplinares. Este trabajo conceptualiza el proceso de adquisición de la escritura académica en estudios de posgrado. Partimos de la teoría de aprendizaje situado que establece que se aprende mediante la participación progresiva en comunidades de práctica. Así, los estudiantes que participan de forma periférica legítima en sus comunidades disciplinares adquieren prácticas de escritura y desarrollan su identidad académica a la vez que modifican tales comunidades. A fin de propiciar un diálogo teórico, se presentan tres niveles de análisis (micro, meso y macro) de las comunidades disciplinares de práctica. Creemos que las conexiones entre estos niveles ponen de manifiesto las relaciones entre estructura social y trayectoria individual así como también revelan dinámicas de poder y modos legitimados de comunicación escrita que influyen el proceso de adquisición de la escritura a nivel de posgrado.

Women are underrepresented among political science faculty and leave academic careers at far greater rates than their male colleagues. Women's lower research productivity is one reason for the declining number of women at advanced academic ranks. Mentoring can provide necessary advice and feedback to encourage scholarly production, but research shows that female scholars face challenges in traditional mentoring arrangements. We propose that peer mentoring can provide a missing link by supporting research productivity. Using a case study of an existing peer-mentoring group, we document how writing groups can provide flexible mechanisms for peer mentoring that circumvent the obstacles women face with mentoring and complement existing mentoring relationships. We discuss the structure of this group, as well as a survey-based assessment of it, to demonstrate how this approach can be readily adopted by other women in the profession seeking to expand their network of mentors to include peers in their subfield.

In this short paper, I reflect on my own writing experiences as an early career researcher and describe three main points that I have learned along the way, that may be of some use to those wanting to improve their own academic writing. In other words, I discuss the ideas and strategies that I wish I had of known when I began academic writing. The first point that I cover is the importance of reading. In particular, reading the literature in your field and finding suitable models for your own writing. The second point that I discuss is the usefulness of sharing your work with others. This helps writers 'get into the mind of their reader', which is essential for explaining complex concepts or ideas. Further, sharing your work may help those who are struggling with motivation, as having another person looking at your work may make you more accountable. The last point that I focus on is using technology to assist with your writing and help with particular 'moves' in the academic genre. Specifically, I discuss the use of an online tool (AWSuM) for second language English writers. While I have taught writing to undergraduates, postgraduates and professors in Japan, this paper is aimed toward those who are struggling with particular academic writing strategies. As such, I offer some insights into my own strategies for writing in no particular order of importance.

This article is based on research conducted by a group of plurilingual postgraduate students from different disciplines who facilitated writing groups at the Centre for Postgraduate Studies at Rhodes University over the past two years. It is based on self-reflective writing of language biographies and aims to raise attention about, and to open up a discussion on, the impact of social and personal language practices. We approach the role of language not only as complex interrogation of academic identity, but also as sense of embodied self, an active element in the formation of geo- and body-politics of knowledge which has been highlighted in recent literature focussing on translanguaging in education and decolonising the curricula of Higher Education. Following self- guided research, we engaged in a critical reflection on the use of home languages in education and consulted relevant literature that argues for the inclusion of translanguaging practices in Higher Education. Our research, therefore, focuses on new epistemologies afforded by a shift away from the monolingual habitus and from the concept of multilingualism towards plurilingualism and translanguaging. Our data suggests that a plurilingual approach towards teaching and learning in Higher Education can afford epistemological access to learners across faculties and disciplines in Higher Education, and we argue that the role of languages of tuition in curricula need to be strategically re-evaluated.

Keywords: Higher Education, curriculum transformation, decolonising curricula, translanguaging, plurilingualism, monolingual bias, interdisciplinary writing group, postgraduate scholars, translanguaging, writing practices, self- reflexive, language biography writing, educational practice, writing groups facilitation, social epistemological knowledge

Resumen Los grupos de escritura consisten en comunidades de escritores que comparten sus borradores para recibir comentarios que permitan mejorar el texto. Estos parecen ser útiles para el aprendizaje de las prácticas letradas de escribir para publicar y para el avance de las publicaciones. Sin embargo, todavía no existe consenso sobre si los miembros de estos grupos debieran pertenecer a una misma disciplina o comunidad Rodas Brosam, E.L. Abstract Writing groups consist of communities of writers whose drafts are shared to give and receive feedback in order to improve them. These groups have proven to be useful to develop writing skills to publish academic and scientific texts and to help increase publications. However, no consensus has been reached when considering if its members should be from the same discipline or discourse community. In this paper we analyze the Ventajas y desafíos de la interdisciplinaridad en grupos de escritura latinoamericanos según sus miembros Interdisciplinarity in latin american writing groups: advantages and challenges according to the members

Graduate peer review groups were one of the first steps in renewing graduate student communication support and resources on campus. These disciplinary groups meet weekly for presentation & review of work. Come learn how the groups evolved & how they’ve helped students re-envision their work without exchanging papers.

The induction of new English teachers is not often made the focus of language programs. In many institutions, the orientation experience receives little attention, resulting in work-related stress at the beginning of an instructor’s teaching contract. Consequently, not only the quality of teaching is affected but also the teachers’ motivation and perception of the program. This research article analyses the results of a case study of an innovation to a new teacher induction in a language program in the city of Cuenca, Ecuador. For this, the case study was based on two-way communication between the administration and the teaching staff through direct feedback, the consideration of language program management principles, as well as the application of a teacher survey after implementation. As a result, the innovation to the induction of new teachers seemed to reduce teachers’ job-related stress during the first week of classes, thus helping to create a learning environment where the program, its teachers, and its students benefit as a whole.

ABSTRACT In this paper, five female scholars of color utilize the method of testimonio (testimony) to document their individual lived experiences as members of a three-year long research and writing collective. This collective served as a space of liberation from the dominant discourses and practices the women were experiencing in the academy. Each testimonio presents themes related to: shared struggles, friendship, trust and vulnerability, a sense of give and take, and their commitment to each other and the group. It is hoped these reflective testimonios (testimonies) contribute to the existing literature citing the benefits of such collaborations among female scholars and also encourages and guides other female academicians to develop their own research and writing collectives.

Peer response writing groups present several benefits in language learning classrooms. However, they are usually supervised by the instructor and thus become time consuming when carried out in class. This descriptive case study offers a model for extramural peer feedback and analyzes 12 meeting transcriptions of four undergraduate EFL writing groups implemented outside class time as support for an academic writing course with limited time for student interaction. These peer response groups were organized to: 1) provide participants with an additional audience, 2) open a space to practice the L2 in an authentic communicative situation, and 3) engage in peer review activities, a literacy practice associated with scientific-academic writing. Based on the data analysis of participant interactions, three main themes emerged according to what the members talked about: interacting as authors and reviewers of research articles, using the L2 in authentic communicative situations, and talking about and enacting literacy practices Although the experience of these writing groups was mainly positive, one of the limitations was their short lifespan, which prevented additional training to model peer response that would help facilitate the interaction among the participants, an important consideration to achieve beneficial peer feedback and to scaffold the process.

Academic writing is a peculiar phenomenon-it varies greatly from discipline to discipline and its requirements are rarely made overt. Taking on the writing practices of the academy has implications for identity and it is thus unsurprising that it is seen to be a risky endeavour. This article analyses the experiences of postgraduate scholars who have participated in writing groups that meet weekly to read each other's work and provide supportive critique. Thirty-two people provided detailed, anonymous evaluations of their writing groups and these were studied using a discourse analysis. Three main findings are discussed here. Firstly, writing circles allowed for academic writing development to be engaged with as a social practice, where the disciplinary norms could be made more explicit through peer deliberation, and where they could also be challenged. Secondly, the lack of hierarchical power in the writing groups was key to making safe spaces for agency development, and also for providing positive peer pressure whereby participants were spurred on to work on their writing. Thirdly, the fact that the groups were interdisciplinary, within cognate disciplinary families, provided an interesting challenge in that the students had to consider what these non-specialist readers would or would not understand. This process assisted students in clarifying their writing. Participants' evaluation of the writing groups revealed an overall sense that these contributed to postgraduate student wellbeing and were places of significant agential development.

Writing groups have been implemented in higher education institutions in the US, UK and Australia as a means of supporting a writer’s productivity (e.g., journal articles or book chapters) as well as developing their soft academic skills (e.g., collegiality). However, writing groups are seldom discussed in the Japanese context. Therefore, this study describes the development, facilitation and implications of writing groups at a Japanese university (i.e., graduate and faculty level groups who met on a weekly basis for eight to ten weeks). The ways in which the facilitator managed each group using structured and unstructured approaches are discussed focusing on a description of the social, theoretical and practical activities of each group. In order to analyze the efficacy of the writing groups, participant experiences were explored in terms of their initial assumptions, expectations and successes. Finally, the characteristics of the two writing groups are compared to previous research findings. The comparison demonstrates that both groups are similar to those in other contexts. Group members are faced with universal issues such as time pressures, motivation, and varying writing abilities. Overall, this study draws attention to the characteristics of two types of writing groups at this particular university, and begins the conversation regarding the development, facilitation and efficacy of these groups in the Japanese context.

Writing groups have been espoused as a means of supporting early-career researchers as they face the challenges of establishing research profiles, attaining job security, gaining funding, and collaborating with other researchers. This paper presents an evaluative study of a writing group in a central learning and teaching development unit at a metropolitan Australian university. The group is unusual because its membership includes both nonacademic and academic staff from multiple disciplinary backgrounds. A participatory action research strategy was adopted to develop and evaluate the writing group, incorporate critical reflection, collaborate using a wiki, analyse qualitative data ('speed dating'), and produce word clouds to triangulate results. Discussing both the process of establishing the writing group and the evaluation strategy has value for departments, centres, and faculty-based groups wanting to develop the scholarship of teaching, support academic and non-academic staff in becoming active researchers, build cohesion, foster interdisciplinary dialogue, and create communities of practice around writing for early-career researchers.

(Our faculty writing group in the Faculty of Education at Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada began in 2009 and over the past three years it has grown into a successfully publishing community of practice. When we have presented papers on the writing group at conferences, we have found that the first question asked tends to be: How did you get the writing group to work? It is a deceptively simple question but the answer taps into many issues surrounding the difficulty of faculty writing and publishing in academic contexts. For many academics, the challenge of navigating the competitive discourse demands of conducting research and publishing journal articles, while at the same time navigating teaching and administrative loads, often leads to anxiety and stress. Situated within the literature on writing groups and research productivity, we contribute by narrating and analysing the evolving story of our group. The purpose of this paper is to explore why members continue to participate and why we have been able to successfully write and publish both individually and as a group. This study used 'the self as data', a qualitative methodology particularly relevant in the analysis of writing processes and groups. The data collected consisted of weekly written reflections, additional written narratives by each group member, and recordings of meeting discussions. We analysed the data qualitatively using the constant comparison method of analysis to generate themes. Results indicate that members attended the group because they were looking for a place to get support for research and writing and to cope with negotiating academic cultures. We argue that the ethos of a 'non-competitive environment' and 'relationships-first' were crucial in fostering collaboration and productivity despite diverse individual differences. We offer this analysis of our experiences, not only in terms of practicalities but also as an alternative way of working in the academy.

As first-generation women of color doctoral students, we intentionally
come together to carve out a space from which we resist and move forward in our graduate studies. Meeting through this writing group allows us to find solace and joy in writing and research. We often experience and internalize hurtful narratives or comments within our university, but take the famous idiom of ‘smile now, cry later’ as a way of staying critical while humanizing our individual and collective experiences. ‘Smile now, cry later’ is especially relevant for us as working class people of color. The corresponding twin masks, one happy, one sad, are popular in our communities, easily found in sticker machines at the grocery store, as common tattoos, and airbrushed on t-shirts at the swap-meet. We carry this symbol and what it represents into our experiences as first-generation women of color graduate students, just as we carry our communities’ stories with us, and we are reminded to stay true to who we are despite calls for assimilation.

Academic writing is a peculiar phenomenon -it varies greatly from discipline to discipline and its requirements are rarely made overt. Taking on the writing practices of the academy has implications for identity and it is thus unsurprising that it is seen to be a risky endeavour. This article analyses the experiences of postgraduate scholars who have participated in writing groups that meet weekly to read each other's work and provide supportive critique. Thirty-two people provided detailed, anonymous evaluations of their writing groups and these were studied using a discourse analysis. Three main findings are discussed here. Firstly, writing circles allowed for academic writing development to be engaged with as a social practice, where the disciplinary norms could be made more explicit through peer deliberation, and where they could also be challenged. Secondly, the lack of hierarchical power in the writing groups was key to making safe spaces for agency development, and also for providing positive peer pressure whereby participants were spurred on to work on their writing. Thirdly, the fact that the groups were interdisciplinary, within cognate disciplinary families, provided an interesting challenge in that the students had to consider what these non-specialist readers would or would not understand. This process assisted students in clarifying their writing. Participants' evaluation of the writing groups revealed an overall sense that these contributed to postgraduate student wellbeing and were places of significant agential development.

Writing groups have been espoused as a means of supporting early career researchers in academia as they face the challenges of establishing research profiles, attaining job security, gaining funding and collaborating with other researchers. This paper presents an evaluative study of a writing group in a central learning and teaching development unit at a metropolitan Australian university. The writing group is unusual in that membership includes non-academic and academic staff from multiple disciplinary backgrounds. A participatory action research strategy was adopted in developing and evaluating the writing group, incorporating critical reflection, collaboration via a wiki, group analysis of qualitative data (‘speed dating’) and the production of word clouds to triangulate results. The discussion of the processes of establishing the writing group and the evaluation strategy have value for departments, centres and faculty-based groups wanting to develop the scholarship of teaching, support academic and non-academic staff to be active researchers, build cohesion, foster interdisciplinary dialogue and create communities of practice around writing for early career researchers.

Einen Ausweg aus Einsamkeit und drohenden Schreibblockaden bietet die Zusammenarbeit in einer Schreibgruppe, die wir in der vorliegenden Handreichung vorstellen. Dabei geht es uns nicht um eine vollständige Aufarbeitung des Themas, sondern um praktische Anregungen. Dazu skizzieren wir zunächst die förderliche Wirkung von Schreibgruppen (siehe Kapitel 2) und stellen anschließend Möglichkeiten für deren Organisation und Arbeitsweise sowie weiterführende Quellen vor (siehe Kapitel 3). Abschließend berichten wir vom Fallbeispiel der Greifswalder Schreibgruppe Umweltethik (siehe Kapitel 4). Ihre Gründung gab auch den Anlass zu der Literaturrecherche, deren Ergebnisse wir im Folgenden zusammenfassen.

Las bajas tasas de graduacion a nivel de posgrado han sido relacionadas con las dificultades encontradas por los estudiantes al tener que encarar la tarea de escritura de tesis. Este estudio cualitativo parte de un enfoque de la escrituracomo practica social situada y, por tanto, expande la mirada hacia lo quelos doctorandos hacen en aras a completar sus tesis. Mediante el analisis deveinte entrevistas en profundidad realizadas a doctorandos y recientes doctoresen las areas de Linguistica y Educacion exploramos como los vinculoscon pares influyen en forma positiva el proceso de tesis. Los resultados indicanque estas interacciones ponen a disposicion de los tesistas informaciony saberes procedimentales y practicos relacionados con diferentes aspectosde la investigacion doctoral. Con base en los resultados, se sugiere que lasinstituciones inicien acciones que propicien la insercion de los tesistas engrupos que fomenten la interaccion entre pares, especialmente en las ultimasetapas del...

Writing groups have been espoused as a means of supporting early-career researchers as they face the challenges of establishing research profiles, attaining job security, gaining funding, and collaborating with other researchers. This paper presents an evaluative study of a writing group in a central learning and teaching development unit at a metropolitan Australian university. The group is unusual because its membership includes both nonacademic and academic staff from multiple disciplinary backgrounds. A participatory action research strategy was adopted to develop and evaluate the writing group, incorporate critical reflection, collaborate using a wiki, analyse qualitative data ('speed dating'), and produce word clouds to triangulate results. Discussing both the process of establishing the writing group and the evaluation strategy has value for departments, centres, and faculty-based groups wanting to develop the scholarship of teaching, support academic and non-academic staff in becoming active researchers, build cohesion, foster interdisciplinary dialogue, and create communities of practice around writing for early-career researchers.

Academic writing is a peculiar phenomenon-it varies greatly from discipline to discipline and its requirements are rarely made overt. Taking on the writing practices of the academy has implications for identity and it is thus unsurprising that it is seen to be a risky endeavour. This article analyses the experiences of postgraduate scholars who have participated in writing groups that meet weekly to read each other's work and provide supportive critique. Thirty-two people provided detailed, anonymous evaluations of their writing groups and these were studied using a discourse analysis. Three main findings are discussed here. Firstly, writing circles allowed for academic writing development to be engaged with as a social practice, where the disciplinary norms could be made more explicit through peer deliberation, and where they could also be challenged. Secondly, the lack of hierarchical power in the writing groups was key to making safe spaces for agency development, and also for providing positive peer pressure whereby participants were spurred on to work on their writing. Thirdly, the fact that the groups were interdisciplinary, within cognate disciplinary families, provided an interesting challenge in that the students had to consider what these non-specialist readers would or would not understand. This process assisted students in clarifying their writing. Participants' evaluation of the writing groups revealed an overall sense that these contributed to postgraduate student wellbeing and were places of significant agential development.

Writing groups have been espoused as a means of supporting early-career researchers as they face the challenges of establishing research profiles, attaining job security, gaining funding, and collaborating with other researchers. This paper presents an evaluative study of a writing group in a central learning and teaching development unit at a metropolitan Australian university. The group is unusual because its membership includes both non-academic and academic staff from multiple disciplinary backgrounds. A participatory action research strategy was adopted to develop and evaluate the writing group, incorporate critical reflection, collaborate using a wiki, analyse qualitative data ('speed dating'), and produce word clouds to triangulate results. Discussing both the process of establishing the writing group and the evaluation strategy has value for departments, centres, and faculty-based groups wanting to develop the scholarship of teaching, support academic and non-academi...