annual report: developing research capacity at uws, structured writing retreat 2014

Professor Rowena Murray

Dr Larissa Kempenaar

DEVELOPING RESEARCH CAPACITY AT UWS ANNUAL REPORT ON STRUCTURED WRITERS’

RETREATS

JANUARY-DECEMBER 2014

of 23

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 2014 Structure Writing Retreats continued to provide participants with a Community of Practice where academic staff and doctoral students share support, experiences, practices and resources. Eight Structured Writing Retreats took place in 2014 with a total attendance of 142, an increase of 150% compared to 2013.

Furthermore, this year saw an increase in participants who attended writing retreat to progress writing for their doctoral theses. This model appears to be particularly useful for staff and students who are undertaking a PhD. Those undertaking PhDs have reported increased skill levels in terms of writing and managing a PhD, while others have been able to return to PhDs after periods of ill health. Although a PhD is a solitary activity, the integration of PhD students into a Community of Practice of varying disciplines, grades and universities means that they are more likely to feel supported and complete their theses in a timely manner.

2014 also saw an increase in the number of participants who attended more than one Structured Writing Retreat from 27% in 2013 to 44% in 2014. Participants reported on the benefits of ‘repeat-retreat’ in terms of productivity and efficiency of writing. The repeat-retreat model works for many people and appears to be particularly beneficial to those attempting to progress and complete their theses. The cumulative effect of attending multiple retreats is also becoming more evident as Structured Writing Retreats are gradually becoming an accepted means of increasing research output.

The equivalent of 8 science based theses was produced by those writing towards PhDs during the SWR, not including progress between retreats. A total of 16 published journal articles, 10 conference presentations (accepted), and 2 book chapters were produced by those attending SWR in 2014 alone. Structured Writing Retreats therefore should be included in University Research Strategies as a means of increasing the University’s research output. In particular, this should be included in any strategies related to the University’s performance in REF 2019.

Structured Writing Retreats continue to be attended mostly by female staff and students. Considering the large research output for, the mostly female, participants, the University should consider facilitating increased research output through Structured Writing Retreats as a means of addressing the gender imbalance in career progression.

Besides research output, there has also been an increase of academic staff who have been writing on Fellowship applications for the Higher Education Academy (HEA). With the current priority for academic teaching staff to become members of the HEA or to upgrade their membership to Senior Fellow, Structure Writing Retreats should therefore also be considered within strategies to support staff’s professional development in teaching and learning.

In conclusion, Structured Writing Retreats are highly productive and facilitate the development of a “culture where our people are supported to be highly motivated, creative and collaborative” (UWS Corporate Strategy 2014-2020).

of 23

CONTENTS

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1

introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 3

attendance .......................................................................................................................................... 4

Outputs ................................................................................................................................................ 6

Outcomes ............................................................................................................................................ 8

Follow up data ................................................................................................................................... 11

Conclusion and recommendations .................................................................................................... 13

References ......................................................................................................................................... 15

appendices ........................................................................................................................................ 16

Appendix I List of internal participants ......................................................................................... 17

Appendix II List of external Participants ....................................................................................... 18

Appendix III Journal publications by retreat participants ................................................................. 19

Appendix IV Conference Presentations by Retreat Participants ....................................................... 21

appendix V Book chapters by retreat participants ............................................................................ 22

of 23

INTRODUCTION

In the recently released corporate strategy the University’s new aims are to:

⁄ Promote vibrant research communities, underpinning the student learning experience and providing a stimulating environment in which staff and students can work and develop

⁄ Support staff to share their research outputs in order to maximise impact and contribute to the international development of knowledge.

(Dreaming, Believing, Achieving, Corporate Strategy 2014-2020)

One method of effectively developing and nourishing vibrant research communities, activity and increasing research outputs is by means of Structured Writing Retreats (SWR). SWR are attended by staff and students from a range of Schools, Departments and Universities. This provides a unique opportunity and environment for developing research communities. SWR provide time away from other academic duties and allow staff and post graduate students to focus on progression in a range of academic writing projects and the production of a range of written outputs, typically PhD chapters; books; conference abstracts; journal articles and research proposals.

SWR are two and a half day, residential retreats which take place in a secluded location near Glasgow. Participants bring information and sources they need on memory sticks or loaded onto laptops. Participants write at computer desks, arranged in a boardroom format. Meals and snacks are provided. The structure and concepts behind the writing retreats have been published previously by Murray and Newton (2009). The retreats all include three evidence based elements:

1. The ‘typing pool’ which means that all participants write individually but are situated in the same room for the duration of the retreat (Grant & Knowles 2000).

2. The use of a series of strict writing and discussion slots. The structured nature of the retreat is based on a systematic review by McGrail et al (2006) who concluded that structured interventions were found most effective in developing academic writing. Within the structured writing sessions ‘free-writing’, i.e. personal writing for short periods, is used at the start of each session which Elbow (1973) found to stimulate the development of ideas and the improvement of fluency.

3. The use of peer discussion to review progress during the retreat (Murray 2005). This was possible as all participants were writing in the same room. This sharing of experiences in relation to writing, in turn, facilitates the development of a community of practice for academic writing at UWS following on from the retreats.

Retreats cost £175 per internal participant and £225 per external participant. The cost of running the retreat (accommodation and catering) is £175 for each individual, which means that the University makes £50 profit per external participant. The profit of SWR goes to the School of Education to fund future places for internal participants.

of 23

This evaluation reports on research outputs from eight SWR at the University of the West of Scotland (UWS) in 2014 and identifies outcomes and benefits for participants. This report builds on the previous report and supports the need for regular attendance at retreats for those who aspire to develop and/or increase their research activity, those aiming to increase productivity in research and writing and those who want to generate new research collaborations in accordance with the University’s Research and Knowledge Exchange Strategy 2011-2015.

ATTENDANCE

Eight SWR took place in 2014. Five were held before the summer and 3 after the summer. On average 18 participants attended each retreat, ranging from a minimum of 14 to a maximum of 21 participants. This is a 150% increase compared to 2013, when 12 participants attended each retreat. A total of 78 participants attended retreats, averaging 1.8 attendances per year. This means that there were 142 attendances over the 8 retreats.

Fifty of the participants (64%) were employees of the University of the West of Scotland. Participants came from across the Schools in the university (see Figure 1). The majority, as in 2013, came from the School of Education (n=12, 24%) and School of Health, Nursing and Midwifery (n=16, 32%), although the actual number of participants from the School of Education was reduced from 17 in 2013 to 12 in 2014. In addition, there was a considerable increase in participants from the Schools of Business and Enterprise and Media, Culture and Society, demonstrating a more varied intake of participants from across the University than in 2013.

Figure 1. Breakdown of participants from UWS

of 23

Twenty-eight of the participants attended only 1 retreat (56%), while 11 attended 2 retreats (22%), and 11 participants (22%) attended more than 3 retreats. This is a change in pattern from 2013 when 73% of participants attended 1 retreat, 14% attended 2 retreats (n=5) and only 13% attended more than 2 retreats. Interestingly, 27 of the participants who attended in 2013 returned to attend retreats in 2014(46%).

When comparing the attendances of 2013 and 2014 the average attendance at retreats has gone down per participants. However when breaking this down into those who stopped attending after 2013 (n=40, 59.7%) and those who returned to attend in 2014, it became clear that those who return to come to SWR attended on average1.7 more retreats than in the previous year.

Cohort 2014 2013 Year 2014 2014 2013

N=50 % N=67 % N=67 % 0 0 0 40 59.7 0 - 1 37 74.0 10 14.9 47 70.1 2 10 20.0 6 9.0 10 14.9 3 1 2.0 3 4.5 6 9.0 4 2 4.0 2 3.0 2 3.0 5 0 - 3 4.5 0 - 6 0 - 1 1.5 1 1.5 7 0 - - 0 - 8 0 - 2 3.0 0 - 9 - - - - 1 1.5

Mean 1.36 (SD 0.72)

Mean 1.13 (SD 1.93) Mean 2.811 (SD 2.13)

Mean 1.61 (SD 1.32)

1For those who continued to attend in 2014 Table 1. Number of Structured Writing Retreats attended in 2013 and 2014

Twenty-eight participants (36%) attended the retreats from other institutions (see Figure 2). This is a reduction from 2013 when 45% of participants came from other institutions. The 28 external participants on average attended 1.6 sessions in 2014, resulting in a total of 45 attendances. This resulted in a profit for the School of Education of £2,250.

The large majority of these participants came from other Scottish Universities (n=18, 64%), while the remainder of participants came from English Universities, the NHS and the Higher Education Academy. One participant was not affiliated with an institution. Twenty of the external participants attended 1 retreat (71%), 4 participants (14%) attended 2 retreats, while the remaining 4 external participants (14%) attended 3 or more retreats. Eleven of the participants (38%) who had attended in 2013 returned to attend in 2014.

Out of 78 participants 15(19%) were male, while 63 (81%) participants were female. This is a considerably higher proportion of females, than is present in the UWS staff population. According to the Athena Swan submission for Bronze awards for the University of the West of Scotland in 2013, 58.4% of the staff were female and 41.6% male.

of 23

Figure 2. Breakdown of external participants.

OUTPUTS

During the 8 retreats, a total of 1,110,786 were written by participants (see table 1). This included 800,463 newly produced words and 310,143 previously produced, edited words. Participants at retreats worked across a range of projects. While many worked on a single project like their PhD many also progressed writing on journal articles, book chapters and a number of other writing projects such as blogs, reflections, news paper articles, grant and ethics applications, and assignments. However, the large majority of people had progressed writing on their PhD. This was reflected in the large number of new words produced (as opposed to edited work) by participants on their PhDs (total 312,252). If that was converted into completed theses word counts, this equates to 4 social science theses or 8 science based theses. This accounted for 39% of the total new word count produced. Progression of journal articles was progressed by 36 people with a newly produced word count of 148,978, 18.6% of the total new word count produced. As can be seen from the follow up data (see Section Follow Up 2013-214), this is reflected in the number of publications resulting from those who have attended writing retreats.

When compared to available data from 2013, it becomes clear that the number of participants writing to progress a PhD was nearly doubled in 2014, which was paralleled in the number of journal articles which was written on a retreat. This means that not only was there an increase in participants who were working on a PhD thesis, these participants also managed to work towards publication of their research in journals in the progress of completing their thesis.

It should also be noted that while the word counts of the facilitator of the SWR (RM) was included in the previous report these have been omitted from the current report as it was felt that this skewed the representation word count.

of 23

Other outputs included: grant applications (n=3), book chapters (n=2), proposals for book chapters (2), conference presentations or abstract (n=20), research proposal (n=1), conference key note lecture, online articles or blogs (3), ethics applications (n=2), job applications (n=2), PhD studentship application (n=1), and Higher Education Academy Fellowship applications (n=4).

Writing project Word counts Participants

PhD Word counts N working on

projects New words written towards chapters 269,985 67

Editing of previously written work 221,690 25 Tables/figures/references 1,383 6

Report on PhD 12,470 3 Research proposal for PhD 15,200 3

Ethics application for PhD study 12,700 4 Other preparatory work for PhD 514 5

Journal article

New words written 124,058 36

Editing of previously written (but not yet submitted) work 62,393 20 Revision of a previously submitted journal article 18,300 4

Tables/figures/references 1,120 7 Other preparatory work for journal article 5,500 2

Conference material

Abstract 1,600 1

Conference paper 1,942 4 Poster 17,000 4

Book chapter

New words written 1,000 1

Editing of previously written work 36,588 9 Tables/figures/references 26,060 5

Other preparatory work for chapter (e.g. reading papers)

0 Research proposals (other than PhD) 1,080 1

Grant applications 600 1 Post graduate assignments (e.g. ProfDoc, MSc) 1,500 2

Ethics applications (other than PhD) 9,300 3 Other (please specify)…Blogs, book proposal, newspaper

article, assignments, reflections 268,803 27 Total words worked on 1,110,786

New Words 800,643 Editted words 310,143

Table 2. Word counts produced at Structured Writing Retreats 2014

of 23

OUTCOMES

The main theme that participants discussed in the feedback is that of the sharing of resources, experiences and practices. This not only took place in relation to writing, but also in terms of academic practice and research. In addition, many talked about peer support and the safety of the group to share weaknesses as well as achievements. Many talked about feeling less lonely in the pursuit of their PhD. This was described by some as the Community of Writers. This is reflected in previous work on Communities of Practice (Murray, 2012).

It does develop your thinking, because you’re hearing about other people’s projects and other ways of thinking. Hearing about other people’s successes is motivating.

People from different disciplines – you learn a lot – normally you’re buried in your own discipline, but having to listen to ‘how does research work in your area’ – it’s good, and getting new tips and research resources.

I find the solitude of doing a PhD is one of the hardest things; the solitude of the unknown, even though I’m used to working on my own. Coming here and finding likeminded ‘journeymen’ is one of the most reassuring things I’ve had for a long, long time, and I hope I can keep this in my mind for a long time.

The company is always good. I keep talking about this community of writers, but that is what it is. You do feel part of something bigger.

The second theme described by participants is the importance of the retreat structure. This was in relation to the importance of the enforcing of the structure by Professor Murray. The structure was discussed in terms of working through barriers as participants would carry on within a provided time slot despite struggling to write. Many described how, in other environment such as at home or at work, they would have side stepped the situation by using task-avoidance.

I came to this retreat feeling not great, but I knew coming here I would deal with it and work my way through it. It forces you to keep going. You play it to the end.

Strongly related to the structure is the enforced disengagement from daily home and work life due to very limited access to the internet and telephone, which means that there are no disruptions which allow a sole focus on writing.

It lets you leave life outside and focus on the writing. Life is complicated, but you can come here and make progress. It’s the ‘ahhh’ moment – relief. You’re here and you’ve got that time.

This focus on writing and facilitated disengagement is reflected in the concepts of task primacy and disengagement has been described in previous research relating to SWR (MacLeod et al 2012,

of 23

Murray 2013). The impact of this was described by another participant when she reported the sense of relief and reduction of stress that took place at retreat.

It’s helped me not stress. I would have been stressing at home and getting worked up about not having done anything, but there’s no space for worry here. I always stress that I can’t write it in two days, but here I did it.

This task primacy of writing was also reported in relation to the fact that task primacy was shared across participants from different disciplines, levels and Universities.

Some also discussed the transferable nature and benefits of this structure and the self-discipline required. This was in relation to academic writing, but also in relation to general academic work practices and the importance in terms of maintaining general wellbeing.

The allocation of breaks throughout the day – that’s not what we do at work. After the July retreats, we started to have an hour for lunch and try to have breaks. Otherwise, we get burnt out.

The structure therefore is an important factor in increasing and maintaining productivity as was illustrated by this participant.

The structure is perfect. The extent to which you managed to push us […] It helped me – when you come up against something difficult […] you just get on with it. In terms of productivity it could not be more productive. And everyone was good to work with. The discipline is so essential.

The enhanced productivity was associated for many with an increase in self-belief. This self-belief related to particular activity, such as participants’ ability to write, but also to more general aspects like the completion of a PhD thesis.

I always find writing a scary process, which contributes to putting it off, and this session has made writing more approachable – breaks through walls, things you put off or avoid. Things you think you can’t do – you realise you can.

While many participants found new ways of working at the retreat, many also reported on the benefit of ‘repeat-retreat’. This highlighted the cumulative effect of the retreat both in familiarity with the structure and increased effectiveness of using the time available.

I’ve been to 6 retreats in 13 months. Because the format stays the same, you can see the changes in how you write and growing confidence. I can now let the experience of starting – not good – go, and move on. I don’t need to keep having the diatribe about my thesis. There’s nothing more to say about that.

A different characteristic of the structured writing retreat is the time dedicated to physical activity as part of the structure. Each day prior to lunch participants are encouraged to take a walk in the country side at their own level and pace. In addition, participants have access to a gym and

of 23

swimming pool at a nearby resort. Some participants reported informally on the importance of this physical activity and their personal achievements as they had neglected their physical wellbeing in their efforts to progress their theses.

One of the goals of the SWR was to include more PhD students from UWS as suggested by Depute Principal Professor Paul Martin. Fifty percent of all attendees from UWS 2014 were undertaking a PhD when they attended a structured writing retreat. Many commented on the importance of attending the writing retreat and how this affected their ability to continue their doctoral thesis. This included meeting other PhD students, but also developing the skills to manage the thesis as well as the skills and discipline to write.

It’s here that I’ve learned the craft of my PhD – I’ve learned most of the things that will help me manage my PhD.

I was really nervous to begin and felt unable to write a thing, which is a feeling I'm used to. However, after trying what you suggested by freewriting, I was able to get a lot of negativity out of my head and clear the way to being able to focus on writing my thesis. So for this I'd like to thank you…. It is certainly one of the most valuable things I have done since beginning my PhD.

This again was related to the support provided by other participants, in combination with the enforced structure which aided task primacy of writing.

I was pretty apprehensive about it before going as I've been struggling a lot with writing in recent months because I lost a lot of confidence in my ability ... The experience I had this weekend has helped me out a great deal in terms of feeling like I am more able to complete my thesis, in part because I found it such a supportive environment and also because of the structure of the retreat I was able to focus on getting through each session instead of feeling overwhelmed by the amount I still need to achieve before completion.

Not only have SWR been helpful in progressing students and staff through their PhDs, it has helped others to return to their PhD following a period of ill health (related to the PhD).

This is a real community of writers. Coming back to work from being ill – this is the first time I’ve been able to stay awake all day, and I have produced writing. I have been struggling back to health, and this has been part of my return to health. All very supportive. It’s therapeutic.

In summary, Stuctured Writing Retreats were perceived as creating and sustaining communities of writers from across disciplines and universities, where participants received support and shared experiences, practices and resources. Participants favourably report on the fixed time slots and imposed structure provided at the retreat, which enforced the task primacy of writing and increased their productivity. Many PhD students reported on the importance of writing retreats in terms of their skill and discipline development. As many participants have attended multiple retreats, the benefits of attending writing retreats appear to become cumulative in productivity and efficiency of writing.

of 23

FOLLOW UP DATA

A follow up survey was carried out in January 2015 regarding writing activities in 2014 with all 117 participants who had taken part since Professor Murray introduced SWR in 2013. In 2013, 67 individuals attended writing retreats (referred to as Cohort 2013), of whom 27 participants continued to attend writing retreats in 2014. Another 50 new participants attended the writing retreats in 2014 (Cohort 2014).

Thirty-one participants who first attended in 2013 replied to the survey, a response rate of 46%. Of the 2014 cohort 30 participants responded; a response rate of 60%.

Of the 61 respondents 33 were undertaking a doctoral degree. Unfortunately only 9 reported on the progress of their thesis. This means that results should be interpreted with caution as it is unlikely that those doctoral students who did not respond (n=24) did not make any progress. Progress of the thesis was recorded in terms of word counts and these can be seen in table 3 for the 9 students who responded. The total number of the 9 respondents was 154,070. It should be noted that the word count reported by those who attended in both 2013 and 2014 was considerably higher than those in 2014 even when taking into account the smaller number of respondents. Total 2014 2013-14 Number of Doctoral students N=33 N=17 N=16 Yes 9 3 6 Word Count 154,070 17,070 137,000 No 2 0 2 Nil response 24 14 9 Table 3. Progress by doctoral students

A total of 22 respondents (36.1%) had progressed journal articles since attending the retreat(s) in 2014 (see table 4). Between these 22 respondents, 15 journal articles had been accepted for publication, while 10 were awaiting review and 3 were preparing submission (see table 5). When comparing these responses for the 2013 Cohort and the 2014 Cohort, it appears clear that those who attended for the first time in 2013 had a greater percentage of journal publications accepted.

Total 2014 2013-14 Participants N=61 % N=30 % N=31 %

Yes 22 36.1 7 23.3 15 48.4 No 26 42.6 23 76.7 13 41.9 Blank 3 4.9 0 - 3 9.7

of 23

Table 4. Participant who submitted journal articles. Total 2014 2013-14

Participants N=22 N=7 N=15 Accepted for publication 15 2 13 Awaiting review 10 3 7 Preparing resubmission 3 2 2 Rejected 0 0 0 No information provided 2 0 2 Table 5. Breakdown of stages of journal publications A further analysis was carried out to compare those with and without reported journal publications with the number of writing retreats attended in 2014. While differences are small, those with journal publications had attended more retreats (2.0), while those who did not submit had fewer attendances (1.6).

Participants continued to attend and set up writing groups in the periods between writing groups. A total of 19 participants (31.1%) reported that they took part in writing groups (n=14, 2013 Cohort, n=15, 2014 Cohort). The frequency of these writing groups varied between regular weekly meet ups, to ad hoc writing groups to meet deadlines. While most writing groups were made up of people from various disciplines across UWS, one group reported to consist of PhD students only. Many groups consisted of participants from various disciplines and/or universities who had met at the SWR and continued working relationships following the writing retreats. Writing groups met in varying locations, such as classrooms, cafes, and the library either on campus or off campus. Some participants have also reported the use of ‘virtual writing groups’, where they emulated the model of fixed time slots, peer discussions and goal setting via email or live chat with a small number of fellow retreat participants. This appeared to be particularly useful for Doctoral students who often worked from home or those who were unable to travel.

of 23

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Structured Writing Retreats have seen an increase in attendances in 2014. Furthermore, 2014 saw an increase in the number of participants who attended more than one SWR from 27% in 2013 to 44% in 2014. Those who returned to attend in 2013 and returned to attend in 2014 increased their frequency of attendance in 2014. Participants also reported on the benefits of ‘repeat-retreat’. This appears to indicate that the repeat-retreat model works for many people in particular for those working towards completion of their theses.

On the other hand, there is a need to explore why so many people attend only once. It could be that they were able to transfer the structure or skills from the retreat, did not have the resources to attend follow up retreats or the model may not have worked for them. However, this is speculative as there currently is no data available regarding these participants.

Structure Writing Retreats have been shown to facilitate incredible productivity in its participants in terms of the output produced. This year saw a significant increase in participants who attended writing retreat to progress on Doctoral theses. The equivalent of 8 science based theses was produced by those writing towards PhDs during the SWR, not including progress between retreats. A total of 16 published journal articles, 10 conference presentations (accepted), and 2 book chapters were produced by those attending SWR in 2014 alone. Structured Writing Retreats therefore need to be included in University Research Strategies as a means of increasing the University’s research output. In particular, this should be included in any strategies working towards REF 2019.

SWR continue to be attended mostly by female staff and students. Considering the very large research output for, the mostly female, participants, the University should consider Structured Writing Retreats as a means of addressing the gender imbalance in career progression at the University of the West of Scotland by improving female academics’ career prospects.

Besides research output, there has also been an increase of academic staff who have been writing on Fellowship applications for the Higher Education Academy (HEA). With the current priority for academic teaching staff to become members of the HEA or to upgrade their membership to Senior Fellow, Structure Writing Retreats also provide a means to increase productivity in this area. This is something thhat

While a profit of £2,250 was made this year, the attendance fee for externals for 2015 has been increased to £275. The profit for each external participant increases from £50 to £100 per person. This means that the SWR can continue to offer places to staff and doctoral students from UWS, while continuing to make a profit from external participants.

Structure Writing Retreats continue to provide participants with a community of practice of writers who mutually share experiences and practices, and support each other. This approach is particularly useful for staff and students who are undertaking a PhD. Those undertaking PhDs have reported increased skill levels in terms of writing and managing a PhD, while others have been able to return

of 23

to PhDs after periods of ill health. Although a PhD is a solitary activity, the integration of PhD students into a Community of Practice of varying disciplines, grades and universities means that they are more likely to feel supported and complete their theses in a timely manner. The cumulative effect of attending multiple retreats is also becoming more pronounced as SWR are gradually becoming an accepted means of increasing research output.

In conclusion, Structured Writing Retreats are highly productive and facilitate the development of a “culture where our people are supported to be highly motivated, creative and collaborative” (UWS Corporate Strategy 2014-2020).

of 23

REFERENCES

Elbow, P. (1973) Writing without Teachers. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Grant, B., & Knowles, S. (2000). Flights of imagination: Academic women be(com)ing writers. International Journal for Academic Development, 5(1), 6-19.

MacLeod, I., Steckley, L., & Murray, R. (2012). Time is not enough: Promoting strategic engagement

with writing for publication. Studies in Higher Education, 37(6): 641-654.

McGrail, M. R., Rickard, C. M., & Jones, R. (2006). Publish or perish: a systematic review of

interventions to increase academic publication rates. Higher Education Research and

Development, 25(1), 19-35.

Moore, S., Murphy, M., & Murray, R. (2010). Increasing academic output and supporting equality of

career opportunity in universities: can writers’ retreats play a role? Journal of Faculty

Development, 24(3): 21-30.

Murray, R., & Newton, M. (2009). Writing retreat as structured intervention: margin or

mainstream? Higher Education Research and Development, 28(5): 527-39.

Murray, R. (2012). Developing a community of research practice. British Educational Research

Journal, 38(5), 783-800.

Murray, R. (2013). It’s not a hobby: reconceptualizing the place of writing in academic work. Higher

Education, 66(1): 79-91.

University of the West of Scotland (2014) Dreaming, Believing, Achieving, Corporate Strategy 2014-2020.

University of the West of Scotland (2011) Research and Knowledge Exchange Strategy 2011-2015

of 23

APPENDICES

of 23

APPENDIX I LIST OF INTERNAL PARTICIPANTS

Participants from the University of the West of Scotland by School n=50, 64.9%

Business Isaac Amaoko Christian Harrison

Marie Fletcher Isobel McDonald

Stephen Gibb Maria Mina

Anne Claire Gillon Dina Nziku

Jacquie Greener Joan Scott

CCI Pamela Barnes Jennifer Jones

Alison Bell Sarah Scott

Education Gordon Asher Diarmuid McAuliffe

Annette Coburn Elaine McCulloch

Donald Gillies Alison McEntee

Susan Henderson Johanne Miller

Larissa Kempenaar Rowena Murray

Claire Mackie Dickson Telfer

Nursing Celia Cameron Aisling McBride

Ruth Deery Louise McCallum

Carol Dickie Amanda McGrandles

Di Douglas Heather McVicars

Lorraine Duers Fiona Milne

Fiona Everett Jean Rankin

Gillian Gamble Wendy Wright

Teresa Macintosh

Science Fiona Averill Hayley McEwan

Angela Beggan Jim Scullion

Uche Chukwura Michelle Smith

Laura Graham Stuart Tennant

Social Science Kieran Hamilton

of 23

APPENDIX II LIST OF EXTERNAL PARTICIPANTS

Participants from other institutions n=27, 35.1%

University First Name Surname Birmingham University Petia Petrova Cumbria University Pete Boyd Edinburgh College of Art Magnus Lawrie Edinburgh University Leila Sinclair-Bright Formerly Glasgow Caledonian University Morag Thow Glasgow Caledonian University Sharon Pettigrew Glasgow University Anna Beck Higher Education Academy Ruth Pilkington Heriot Watt University Amos Haniff Heriot Watt University Ihssan Jwijati King’s College London Salha Aljohani Lancaster University Helena Kettleborough Liverpool Hope University Ria Cheyne Napier University Marianne Baird NHS Morag Findlay NHS/Glasgow Caledonian University Kirstin James Private Tracey McLennan St Andrews University Jennie Baker Stirling University Maureen Michael Strathclyde University Mary Welsh Strathclyde University Alia Weston Strathclyde University Andrea Tonner Strathclyde University Kathy Hamilton Strathclyde University Matthew Alexander Teesside University Sue Smith University College London Ann Stewart University of the Highlands and Islands Helen Coker

of 23

APPENDIX III JOURNAL PUBLICATIONS BY RETREAT PARTICIPANTS

2013 Cohort Impact rating

1. Asher, G., & French, L. (2014). Crises Capitalism and Independence Doctrines.Concept, 5(1), 10. http://concept.lib.ed.ac.uk/index.php/Concept/article/download/249/243

2. Asher, G. & French, L. (2014) The Scottish Referendum, 2014: Eco-Social Justice and a Critical ‘YES, BUT’, Heathwood Press, http://www.heathwoodpress.com/the-scottish-referendum-2014-eco-social-justice-and-a-critical-yes-but-gordon-asher-leigh-french/

3. Asher. G.with French, L. (2014) A Proposal: Voting ‘Yes, BUT’, ZNet, https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/a-proposal-voting-yes-but/

4. Miller, J., McAuliffe, L., Riaz, N., & Deuchar, R. (2015). Exploring youth's perceptions of the hidden practice of youth work in increasing social capital with young people considered NEET in Scotland. Journal of Youth Studies, (ahead-of-print), 1-17.

0.771

5. McEwan, H.E. & Tod, D. (2015). Learning Experiences Contributing To Service-Delivery Competence In Applied Psychologists: Lessons For Sport Psychologists. Journal Of Applied Sport Psychology. 27 (1), 79-93.

1.098

6. McCaig, M., McNay, L., Marland, G., Bradstreet, S., & Campbell, J. (2014). Establishing a recovery college in a Scottish University. Mental Health and Social Inclusion, 18(2), 92-97.

N/A

7. Waugh, A., McNay, L., Dewar, B., & McCaig, M. (2014). Supporting the development of interpersonal skills in nursing, in an undergraduate mental health curriculum: Reaching the parts other strategies do not reach through action learning. Nurse education today, 34(9), 1232-1237.

1.456

8. McCaig, M., McNay, L., Howatson, V., McCormack, J., McIntosh, G., & Mathers, B. (2014). Do mental health nurse lecturers ‘walk the talk’, as well as ‘talk the talk’?. British Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 3(5), 223-228.

N/A

9. Bamber, R. (in press) 'Cite Global, Act Local In Master’s Scholarship', In Higher Education Quarterly, July 2015

N/A

10. Marcos, R., & Correia-Gomes, C. (2014). The innate immune system of the liver: May it explain the stronger viral clearance in female sex?. Hepatology, 60(5), 1800-1801.

11.190

11. Porphyre, T., Boden, L. A., Correia-Gomes, C., Auty, H. K., Gunn, G. J., & Woolhouse, M. E. (2014). How commercial and non-commercial swine producers move pigs in Scotland: a detailed descriptive analysis. BMC

1.743

http://concept.lib.ed.ac.uk/index.php/Concept/article/download/249/243

http://www.heathwoodpress.com/the-scottish-referendum-2014-eco-social-justice-and-a-critical-yes-but-gordon-asher-leigh-french/




https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/a-proposal-voting-yes-but/

of 23

veterinary research, 10(1), 140.

12. Santos, M., Correia-Gomes, C., Santos, A., de Matos, A., Rocha, E., Lopes, C., & Pereira, P. D. (2014). Nuclear pleomorphism: Role in grading and prognosis of canine mammary carcinomas. The Veterinary Journal, 200(3), 426-433.

2.165

13. Correia-Gomes, C., Economou, T., Bailey, T., Brazdil, P., Alban, L., & Niza-Ribeiro, J. (2014). Transmission parameters estimated for Salmonella typhimurium in swine using susceptible-infectious-resistant models and a Bayesian approach. BMC veterinary research, 10(1), 101.

1.743

2014

14. Chukwura, U. O., Udom, G. J., Cuthbert, S. J., & Hursthouse, A. S. (2015) Evaluation of hydrochemical characteristics and flow directions of groundwater quality in Udi Local Government Area Enugu State, Nigeria. Environmental Earth Sciences, 73 (8), 4541-4555

1.572

15. Boyd, P. (2014). Learning conversations: teacher researchers evaluating dialogic strategies in early years settings. International Journal of Early Years Education,22(4), 441-456.

16. Scullion, J., Stansfield, M., & Baxter, G., (2015). UNITE: Enhancing students’ self-efficacy through the use of a 3D virtual world. Journal of Universal Computer Science. In revision.

0.401

of 23

APPENDIX IV CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS BY RETREAT PARTICIPANTS

2013 Cohort

Asher, G. (2014) Learning development for social justice? A proposal - critical academic literacies. Conference Session ALDinHE 2014: http://www.aldinhe.ac.uk/resources/files/hudd14/abstracts/4-2.pdf

Asher, G. (2015) Learning Development in the Neoliberal University: Tensions and challenges; barriers and limitations; opportunities and possibilities. Conference Session ALDinHE 2015: http://www.aldinhe.ac.uk/resources/files/solent15/abstracts/6-1.pdf

Bamber, R. (2014) Think global, act local in master’s scholarship . Higher Education Close Up Research Conference: Making a Difference, Lancaster.

McNay, L. Marland, G. and McCaig, M. (2014) Empowering education: Establishing a wellness and recovery college in a scottish university. [online] Scottish Recovery Network. http://www.scottishrecovery.net/Latest-News/empowering-education-establishing-a-wellness-and-recovery-college-in-a-scottish-university.html [Accessed 16-Mar-15]

McNay L and Dewar B (2014) The role of language in enhancing partcipation, Enhancing Practice Conference: Toronto.

Riaz, N. (2014) Ethnicity, young people and ‘othering'; ‘it’s like we don’t exist’: Transitions from school to nowhere. Sixteenth Conference of the Children’s Identity and Citizenship in Europe Academic Network: London. https://metranet.londonmet.ac.uk/fms/MRSite/Research/cice/pubs/2014/2014_394.pdf [Accessed 16-Mar-15]

2014 Cohort

Boyd, P. & Constable, H. (2014) The Teacher Researcher: becoming an expert teacher through mastery of enquiry. European Council for Educational Research (ECER) annual conference, Porto, September 2014

Tennant, S., Fernie. S. and Murray, M., (2014) The myth of best practice through the lens of construction supply chain management. 30th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2014, Portsmouth, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction Management.

Scullion, J., Stansfield, M. and Baxter, G., (2014). Gender Differences in Self-Efficacy Relating to Collaborative Learning in a 3D Virtual World. In: E-iED 2014 Proceedings. Presented at the E-iED 2014, ImmersiveEducation.org, Vienna, pp. 1–14.

Scullion, J & Creechan, G. (2014). Nursing Students’ use of a 3D Virtual World to Enhance Self Efficacy in Collaborative Tasks. In: Proceedings of the European Conference in the Applications of Enabling Technologies. In press.

http://www.aldinhe.ac.uk/resources/files/hudd14/abstracts/4-2.pdf

http://www.aldinhe.ac.uk/resources/files/hudd14/abstracts/4-2.pdf

http://www.aldinhe.ac.uk/resources/files/solent15/abstracts/6-1.pdf

http://www.scottishrecovery.net/Latest-News/empowering-education-establishing-a-wellness-and-recovery-college-in-a-scottish-university.html

http://www.scottishrecovery.net/Latest-News/empowering-education-establishing-a-wellness-and-recovery-college-in-a-scottish-university.html

https://metranet.londonmet.ac.uk/fms/MRSite/Research/cice/pubs/2014/2014_394.pdf

of 23

APPENDIX V BOOK CHAPTERS BY RETREAT PARTICIPANTS

2013 Cohort

Asher, G. (2015) Critical Thinking and Your Research, in Walsh, T, & Ryan, A. (2015) Writing Your Thesis: A guide for postgraduate students, MACE Press.

Asher, G. (2015) Originality in Postgraduate Research, in Walsh, T, & Ryan, A. (2015) Writing Your Thesis: A guide for postgraduate students, MACE Press.