Topic outline
-
Contents:
- Introduction
- Types of writing group
- Working with short texts
- Working with longer texts
- Supervision groups
- What can go wrong, and how to make it go right
- Operational norms
- Constructive group behaviours
- Role of the facilitator
- Peer-based or expert-led?
Introduction
Where the object of retreats is to facilitate writing and to encourage positive writing practices, writing groups are designed to facilitate feedback and discussion on writing. Writing groups can focus on both genre and language as well as writing content, and they can be peer-led or facilitated by supervisors and other academics in the local area. Strategies and considerations for setting up writing groups are discussed in this resource.
There are many benefits of writing groups. Writing groups can:
- provide a network and sense of collegiality and belonging
- provide support in solving problems arising in the research and writing process
- provide encouragement, and improve confidence and motivation
- reach deep levels of engagement, critique and learning around participant research topics, and reveal any problems early
- give participants multiple sources of input
- improve the quality of drafts supervisors receive
- improve research quality
- provide writing deadlines
- provide feedback and support in preparing for oral presentations, publications, other writing deadlines
- provide editorial assistance
- provide practice giving and receiving feedback
- provide people to celebrate successes with.
Types of writing groups
Writing groups can operate in a variety of ways for a variety of purposes. They can be conducted face-to-face or virtually. Groups can work on short or longer texts, and they can involve group editing or individualised feedback rounds, or some combination of these. Open discussion and social time are often a critical element in the success of writing groups and more or less time can be devoted to this depending on group preferences. Below are some suggestions for working with writing during the more structured segments of writing groups.
Working with short texts
Working with short texts can involve projecting a draft on a physical or virtual screen and inviting feedback and editing suggestions from the group to perfect the draft. Works best with:
- abstracts
- introductions
- chapter or journal article outlines
- oral presentations
- drafts with specific function of no more than one to three pages.
How they can work:
- The draft is projected on a screen so everyone in the group can see it at once.
- The writer reads the draft. Every one else listens and reflects.
- The writer or facilitator then invites feedback and discussion.
- The writer listens and takes notes, answers questions and asks for specific feedback.
- The writer, facilitator or other group member (or combination of these) can edit the text based on the feedback and discussion from the group.
- Track changes can be used to track suggested edits, and to allow the writer to accept or not accept suggestions later.
- The edited text is forwarded to the writer at the close of the session.
Advantages:
- No pre-reading required.
- Texts can be edited or notes and suggestions recorded for all to view, drawing on collective energy and ideas.
- Several participant texts can be covered in a session (10 to 20 minutes each, but can be longer).
- Writers go away with improved drafts.
- Provides practice and discussion around how/whether to revise specific aspects of texts.
- Easy to organise and popular with writers.
Working with longer texts
Working with longer texts (eg research proposals, thesis chapters and journal articles) requires that group members pre-read the text, make written comments, and then come together at a pre-arranged time to discuss the text.
How they can work:
- Drafts are submitted at agreed date before meetings to enable group members to read, reflect and provide written feedback on the draft.
- During the meeting participants take turns to share their feedback.
- Following feedback, open discussion of the draft can proceed.
- At the end of meetings, writer's volunteer to submit text for next meeting.
Considerations for success:
- ongoing, long-term commitment required from group members;
- requires organisation;
- group dynamics and communication skills of group members can impact on the long term success of the group;
- when members bond, groups can be enduring and provide a deep source of support and learning.
Supervision groups
Supervision groups involve two or more supervisors working together to support their combined research degree candidates. All, or some combination of supervisors can facilitate or be present during writing groups, or supervisors can take it in turns to facilitate group meetings.
Advantages:
- students get input from more than one expert;
- may provide opportunity for candidates to observe experts disagree which enables critical reflection on various perspectives, builds confidence to take up a position, and shows how to manage disagreement;
- breaks down power asymmetry in diadic or team supervision, and supports collegial supervisory relationships;
- fosters sense of community within an area or among supervisors and research students.
What can go wrong, and how to make it go right
What can go wrong in writing groups:
- suspicion about collective ways of working
- poor organisation
- lack of commitment from group members
- lack of preparation
- disruptive behaviours
- group culture is not 'safe' or conducive to open and deep dialogue.
Operational norms
At the first or second meeting of a new writing group it is useful to decide upon and record how the group intends to operate. These operational norms can be renewed and revised at a later date as required. A list of operational norms is provided below to act as a discussion starter for new writing groups, but each group should collectively decide how they would like the group to operate.
Below, a list of norms recommended by members of writing groups that work with longer texts is provided:
- six to eleven members (to allow for different opinions without getting too big to manage),
- fortnightly or monthly meetings,
- members be at a similar level of accomplishment,
- manuscripts circulated before the meeting to allow everyone to provide thoughtful criticism,
- feedback provided in writing on the draft with the reader's name on the top of the page,
- all decisions made collectively,
- designated time before the feedback session to share news and raise any concerns,
- everyone takes a turn to provide and receive feedback,
- participants arrive on time,
- participants let the group know if they will not be able to attend (to prevent others feeling the group is flagging),
- drafts submitted within an agreed lead time,
- strict confidentiality (no one outside the group to have access to drafts),
- concise feedback, in turn, and without interruption from others,
- avoid asking the writer questions that will elicit long explanations,
- the writer says nothing, or as little as possible during a feedback round,
- allow time for open discussion and responses from the writer following feedback round.
Constructive group behaviours
- Everyone takes a turn.
- Equal time on the floor.
- Encouragement and support of others.
- Read and comment on the substance of submitted work.
- Offer alternatives and solutions.
- Build on the comments of others.
- Stay task focused.
- Raise issues about the group dynamic within the group.
Joni Cole (2006:134-137) provides a humorous characterisation of the 'world's worst' workshop participants. This can be useful to bear in mind when setting up operational norms in your writing group.
The shadow—shows up to meetings, but rarely shares or takes a turn.
The dominator—doesn't draw breath, likes to talk about self and pads comments with irrelevant detail.
The star—assumes their work is the best, brags about their achievements, doesn't read other people's work.
The grammarian—obsesses with minor errors, avoids being involved in discussion about substantive themes.
The devil's advocate—contradicts for the sake of contradiction, enjoys stirring up trouble.
The interrupter—impulsive, impatient, cuts people off, runs away with others' ideas.
The outpatient—wants to work out issues and connect with others, not work on writing.
The gossip—talks about other members behind their back, poisons group members against one another.
Role of the facilitator
Writing groups, especially those with more than four members, will usually run better with a facilitator. The facilitator can be the same person every meeting, or group members can take it in turns to facilitate group meetings. The facilitator's role is to foster a sense of community, rather than one of competition by keeping the discussion positive and task focused.
The role of the facilitator is to:
- raise operational matters (meeting times, food, submission turns and dates, minutes);
- ensure writer's get equal time, or that time is negotiated in the group;
- ensure everyone gets a turn to talk (by calling upon members one at a time, or calling upon quieter members directly);
- use humour and positivity to manage any digressions, arguments, rehashing, dominating, side conversations and put downs and keep the discussion on track;
- reiterate key points before the group moves on to a new tack;
- stimulate discussion if the group flags (ask open ended questions 'Tell me more about ...');
- remain impartial (no favourites, encourage members to work out any issues with one another directly);
- ensure the group reflects on its own process at agreed intervals, and everyone is heard from (group round, or sharing written notes).
Peer-based or expert-led?
Peer groups can provide excellent feedback and improve drafts markedly before being presented to supervisors and other discipline experts. In his book Writing without teachers, Peter Elbow argues that although experts provide advice on strong points and how to improve weak points in texts, they don't necessarily help writer's to know what their words actually conveyed to readers, or how their words were perceived and experienced by readers. Experts can also make writer's feel anxious and judged. Elbow argues that 'teacherless' groups can help writer's to see and experience their own words through others' eyes, and that people will find their way to better communication without being led by teachers. Some of Elbow's strategies for facilitating feedback in peer-led groups are provided in the next topic on feedback.
At the same time, writing groups will clearly benefit from input from academic staff. Sometimes peer-only writing groups can get bogged down in disagreements or come to wrong conclusions. And HDR candidates in writing groups commonly request input and attendance by an academic staff member. There are a variety of options regarding academic input. One or more academics can attend on an ongoing basis, or intermittently, perhaps by invitation from the group; or local area academics can take turns to attend groups.
A key consideration is that successful writing groups typically involve significant interpersonal bonding, enabling trust and a sense of safety to develop in the group. This is enormously beneficial for learning, but it could also mean that discussion becomes inhibited in the presence of itinerant members. Whatever group membership is decided upon, it will be important to allow for relationship development with a committed membership over time to ensure that a group becomes a space in which members feel safe to share problems, open themselves to feedback, and offer one another an honest, depth critique.
References utilised in the production of this resource
Cole, Joni 2006. Toxic feedback: Helping writers survive and thrive. University Press of New England.
Le Guin, Ursula 1998, Steering the craft: Exercises and discussions on story writing for the lone navigator or the mutinous crew, The Eighth Mountain Press, Portland Oregon.
Elbow, Peter. 1998. Writing Without Teachers. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford UP.
