Professor Rowena Murray

Dr Larissa Kempenaar

DEVELOPING RESEARCH CAPACITY AT UWS ANNUAL REPORT ON STRUCTURED WRITERS’

RETREATS

JANUARY-DECEMBER 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This is the third year that Structured Writing Retreats have been run by Professor Rowena Murray at the University of the West of Scotland. They provide participants with an environment where academic staff and doctoral students share support, experiences, practices and resources.

Seven Structured Writing Retreats took place in 2015 with a total of 134 attendances.

In excess of 1 million words were written and edited at the 7 retreats in 2015. On average, nearly 6,000 new words were written per attendance per retreat. Fifty-five percent of productivity was attributed to progression of doctoral degrees.

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.

Structured Writing Retreats should be included in University Research Strategies as a means of increasing the University’s research output and achievement of the University’s KPIs. 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. This will aid the University in its efforts towards Athena Swan accreditation.

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).

Page 1 of 18

CONTENTS

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................3

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

Outputs..............................................................................................................................................5

Outcomes...........................................................................................................................................7

Conclusion and recommendations.....................................................................................................9

References.......................................................................................................................................11

appendices.......................................................................................................................................12

Appendix I List of internal participants........................................................................................13

Appendix II List of external Participants........................................................................................0

Appendix III Research output by retreat participants....................................................................1

Page 2 of 18

INTRODUCTION

In the 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 are residential and provide time away from other academic duties. They 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 resources 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.

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 £180 per internal participant and £280 per external participant. Cost of external participants has increased since 2014 by £55 per person. The cost of running the retreat (accommodation and catering) is £180 for each individual. This means the University makes £100 profit per external participant. The profit of SWR goes to the Centre for Research in Education based in the School of Education to fund places for internal participants.

This evaluation report describes the research outputs from seven SWR at the University of the West of Scotland (UWS) in 2015 and identifies outcomes and benefits for participants. The report builds on the previous annual reports of 2013 and 2014 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

Page 3 of 18

collaborations in accordance with the University’s Research and Knowledge Exchange Strategy 2011-2015.

Page 4 of 18

ATTENDANCE

In 2015, seven Structured Writing Retreats took place. Four were held before the summer and 3 after the summer. There were 134 attendances over the 7 retreats. On average 19 participants attended each retreat, ranging from a minimum of 16 to a maximum of 21 participants. This is a small increase compared to 2014, when 18 participants attended each retreat. A total of 74 participants attended retreats, which is a 48% increase in the number of participants from 2014, and a 10% increase from 2013. This takes the total number of participants who have attended one or more retreats over the period 2013-2015 to 158.

Of the 74 participants in 2015, 57 were female (77%) and 42 of the participants were undertaking a Doctoral degree at the time of the retreat (57%). Fifty-one of all participants attended only 1 retreat (69%), while 8 attended 2 retreats (11%), and 15 participants (21%) attended more than 3 retreats. This is a change in pattern from 2014 when 56% of participants attended 1 retreat, 22% attended 2 retreats. A similar percentage of participants attended more than 3 or more retreats in 2014.

Thirty-six participants attended retreat for the very first time (49%). This means that 51% of participants (n=38) had attended a retreat in previous years. Fifteen participants (22%) who attended retreat in 2013 returned in both 2014 and 2015. Four participants (6%) who had attended in 2013, but not in 2014, returned to attend in 2015. Nineteen participants (38%) who attended for the first time in 2014 returned for a repeat retreat in 2015.

When comparing the attendances of 2013, 2014 and 2015 it is interesting to note that those participants who attended retreats over the 3 years have a mean attendance of 3 retreats per year. This is considerably higher than the average attendance per year of participants of 1.6-1.8 retreats per year.

Year 2015 2014 2013N=74 % N=50 % N=67 %

1 52 70.3 37 74.0 47 70.12 8 11.0 10 20.0 10 14.93 3 4.1 1 2.0 6 9.04 7 9.5 2 4.0 2 3.05 0 - 0 - 0 -6 3 4.1 0 - 1 1.57 2 2.7 0 - 0 -8 - - 0 - 0 -9 - - - - 1 1.5

Average 1.8 Mean 1.6 Average 1.7Table 1. Number of Structured Writing Retreats attended in 2013-2015

Forty-five of the participants (62%) 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 2014, came from the School of Education (n=14, 31%) and the School of Business and Enterprise (n=14=31%). There was a significantly smaller number of participants from the School of Health, Nursing and Midwifery (n=6, 13%) than in 2014.

Page 5 of 18

Education31%

Business and Enterprise31%

HNM13%

Science and Sport18%

Media, Culture, Society7%

Education Business and Enterprise HNMScience and Sport Media, Culture, Society

Figure 1. Breakdown of participants from UWS in 2015

Twenty-nine participants (39%) attended the retreats from other institutions. This is slightly more than in 2014 (36%). The 29 external participants on average attended 1.4 sessions in 2015, resulting in a total of 42 attendances. This resulted in a profit for the School of Education of £4,200.

The majority of these participants came from Universities outside of Scotland (n=17, 59%), which is a reverse from 2014 when most external participants came from Scottish Universities.

OUTPUTS

During the 7 retreats, a total of 1,102,515 words were written and edited by participants (see table 1). This included 825,890 newly produced words and 276,626 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, grant and ethics applications, HEA applications and assignments. However, the large majority of people had progressed writing on their PhD. Unlike in 2014, the new number of words produced towards PhDs during 2015 (296,734), was closely followed by the number of previously produced, edited words (268,403). This means that 55% of the total word edited and produced were related to PhD projects.

This is likely to reflect the near completion stage of their PhD for several participants during 2015. If the PhD word counts produced were converted into completed theses word counts, this equates to nearly 4 social science theses or 8 science based theses.

Page 6 of 18

Writing project Word countsPhD

New words written towards chapters 296,734Editing of previously written work 268,403

Tables/figures/references 1,792Report on PhD 8,294

Research proposal for PhD 4,568Ethics application for PhD study 9,483Other preparatory work for PhD 13,175

Journal articleNew words written 30,780

Editing of previously written (but not yet submitted) work 131,095Revision of a previously submitted journal article 6,852

Tables/figures/references 3Other preparatory work for journal article 16,672

Conference materialAbstract 799

Conference paper 2,315Poster 38,948

Book chapterNew words written 26,066

Editing of previously written work 170,402Research proposals (other than PhD) 10,066

Grant applications 11,991Post graduate assignments (e.g. ProfDoc, MSc) 10,261

Ethics applications (other than PhD) 6,852Other (please specify)…Blogs, book proposal, newspaper article,

assignments, reflections 36,962Total words worked on 1,102,515

New Words 825,890Edited words 276,626

Table 2. Word counts produced at Structured Writing Retreats 2015

Page 7 of 18

OUTCOMES

At the end of each retreat, participants are invited to provide feedback regarding their experience of the writing retreat. Three main themes emerged from this feedback, including: the benefits of the structure; the benefits of repeated attendance at retreat, and the positive group aspect of retreat.

The first main recurring theme across retreats is the effectiveness of the writing retreats in terms in the structure and the opportunity to prioritise writing. Many participants identify the targeted writing in time and space at the retreats as the reason for their productivity.

I’ve been working hard but not being so productive. It is 18 months since my previous retreat, and I have been writing, but not as productively. The advice given to focus on the purpose of the writing task at this retreat has really helped me to see it as more achievable.

The structure of fixed time slots for peer discussion, writing and breaks, appears to enable participants to be more productive and tackle more difficult phases of writing.

This morning I wanted to stop after an hour, but I didn’t. It’s good after getting through yesterday to realise, yes, I can do the writing.

I’m here because I find writing difficult, but here it’s very comfortable.

This first quote also illustrates that participants gained confidence in their own ability, based on a sense of achievement through the effective use of time to write.

Prioritising writing appears to be a change in practice for many attending the retreats. Something that some participants aim to transfer to their normal writing practices in between retreats.

The writing takes priority here. This is unusual. I don’t know how you would manage that in any other context. It’s a kick start to make more time for writing. And I know I can do a lot in an hour.

The second theme that participants discussed in the feedback was the benefit of returning to retreats. Many discussed how after the first retreat, they were able to become more efficient at making use of the time available, as they knew what was coming and how to best prepare to be productive.

Now I know what to expect, for particularly hard bits of writing... For writing that’s really hard, I think this is essential. I wouldn’t have done that without retreat.

This quote also illustrates how some participants specifically use the writing retreat(s) for the more difficult parts of writing as they can anticipate that they will be able to work through the harder parts due to the fixed writing time slots and the continued peer discussions.

Some participants also discussed how they continued writing between retreats in writing groups. While this was perceived as beneficial, residential writing retreats (in particular regular retreats) were perceived as being the most effective in progressing writing reports.

Page 8 of 18

A few of us try and follow the format and meet to write, and we do quite well, but not as well as we do here’ [at residential retreats].

One of the participants explained the need for repeated attendance by comparing writing to attending a personal trainer to increase physical fitness: “Do you only see a personal trainer once? Of course, you need to go to more than one retreat.”

The final theme in the feedback is the recurring theme of the sharing of good practice and the supportive environment experienced during the retreats. This is often described as the ‘community of writers’. This is reflected in previous work on Communities of Practice (Murray, 2012). The typing pool set up and strict writing slots contributed towards this sense of community occurred during the writing slots.

The pressure of other people writing – positive pressure of having other people around who are all doing the same thing – it’s an atmosphere.

However, this also occurred during the structured discussion sessions, shared meals, recreational time and tea breaks. Participants spoke positively of sharing experiences, advice and resources with other academics from a range of Universities and disciplines. However, it was the commonality of writing and its inherent challenges which provided a sense of solidarity and support between participants.

The way it’s organised – talking to other people – everybody has something helpful to say about the process. Having someone say that to you makes it easier to get through it. Everyone’s in the same position.

In summary, the feedback from participants confirms that Structured Writing Retreats continue to provide a safe space and time for participants to prioritise writing. The structure increases productivity and allows participants to develop confidence in their ability to produce research output. The structure and discipline, facilitated within the retreats, are aspects of academic life many academics struggle with in their normal working practices. Structured Writing Retreats allow for the development of communities of practice which are supportive of academic writing during and between retreats.

Page 9 of 18

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Structured writing retreats continue to provide academics from UWS and other HEI institutions with the opportunity to prioritise writing and progress with research output. In excess of 1 million words were written and edited at the 7 retreats in 2015. On average, nearly 6,000 new words were written per attendance per retreat. Fifty-five percent of productivity was attributed to progression of doctoral degrees. This confirms the effectiveness of retreats to support the University in the achievements of its research KPIs in terms of publications and completions of doctoral degrees.

Structured writing retreats in 2015 continued to be attended by more female, than male, academics. While the University employs approximately 50% female academics, on average 77% of retreat participants were women. This suggests that this model may be favoured by female academics. This has been highlighted in previous research (Moore et al, 2010) and will be further explored by Dr Kempenaar in a pilot research project in March-June 2016 funded by the Centre for Research in Education. This may provide an increased understanding of the potential impact of writing retreats on female academics’ career progression and assist the University in its efforts towards Athena Swan accreditation.

There is an increase in the percentage of participants returning for ‘repeat- retreats’. Twenty-eight percent of participants who first attended in 2013 returned to attend further retreats, 38% of participants who first attended in 2014, attended subsequent retreats in 2015. This is supported by participants’ feedback which highlights the continued need for retreats over the years, and the increased benefit in terms of productivity when attending further retreats. However, considering the consistent positive feedback from participants, there is a need to explore why 43 out of 71 internal participants have not returned to attend retreats in subsequent years.

Since the introduction of Structured Writing Retreats in 2013, several members of staff have set up writing groups, which use the same structure and principles as the retreats, to maintain the writing momentum in between retreats. These informal writing groups tend to be held across campuses, consisting of members of staff and PhD students from across different Schools and Disciplines. The model of writing groups is also being transferred for use with students, and combined staff and student groups, suggesting the model is applicable across a range of participants. These groups are currently not consistently advertised within the University or evaluated. It would be worthwhile to review these groups and make them more visible as a means for support in between retreats to facilitate staff to write.

This report has demonstrated that, in 2015, Structure Writing Retreats have continued to contribute substantially to the research output of participants from UWS. 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.

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.

Page 10 of 18

The profit of Structured Writing Retreats was nearly doubled in 2015 from £2,250 in 2014, to £4,200 in 2015. The potential of Structured Writing Retreats to generate income will be further explored in 2016. In addition, Professor Murray ran 2 residential Training for Retreat Facilitator courses in 2015, which were attended by 16 external participants and 10 internal participants. External participants paid £1000 to attend this training event. Further training events have been planned for September 2016.

At the end of 2015 a new project has also commenced which is supported and funded by Ian Bishop (Head of Research Services). The aim of this project is to facilitate members of staff who are currently not publishing regularly, to write up projects or scholarly activities. The first phase of this project takes place between December 2015 and June 2016.Staff are offered a Writing for Publication Workshop and one residential Structured Writing Retreat facilitated by Professor Murray. The first workshops have taken place and the feedback has been positive. The project is evaluated in terms of publication rates and staffs’ confidence in their writing skills and writing discipline. A report will be available for this project from July 2016.

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).

Page 11 of 18

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

Page 12 of 18

APPENDICES

Page 13 of 18

APPENDIX I LIST OF INTERNAL PARTICIPANTS

Number of participants from UWS n=45 (61.6%)

First Name Surname School Heather Anderson BusinessSandro Carnicelli BusinessSiobhan Drummond BusinessMarie Fletcher BusinessTom Garrett BusinessAnne Clare Gillon BusinessJacqui Greener BusinessMasood Khodadadi BusinessIsobel McDonald BusinessThandiwe Mtetwa BusinessDina Nziku BusinessLorna Stevens BusinessTheo Tzanidis BusinessValerie Will BusinessGordon Asher EducationEdward Beggan EducationDonald Gillies Education

LaurenceGiraud-Johnstone Education

Susan Henderson EducationLarissa Kempenaar EducationClaire Mackie EducationDiarmuid McAuliffe Education

Page 14 of 18

First Name Surname School Elaine McCulloch EducationAlison McEntee EducationSandra McKechan EducationJohanne Miller EducationKate Miller EducationRowena Murray EducationDi Douglas HNMGillian Gamble HNMLisa McNay HNMSamuel Quinn HNMLorna Reid HNMEdel Roddy HNMJennifer Jones MCSAileen O'Gorman MCSGraeme Truslove MCSFiona Averill Science and SportAngela Beggan Science and SportLaura Graham Science and SportKatherine Kirk Science and SportHayley McEwan Science and SportJim Scullion Science and SportMichelle Smith Science and SportJane Tobias Science and Sport

Page 15 of 18

APPENDIX II LIST OF EXTERNAL PARTICIPANTS

Participants from other institutions n=27, 38.9%

First Name Surname UniversityMary Bell University College DublinGill Bishop York St John UniversityCoree Brown University of EdinburghAlix Cage KeeleOctavian Cozas KeeleAlison Eardley Westminster UniversityMaggie Grant City University LondonAmos Haniff Heriot WattAlison Hardy Nottingham Trent UniversityLeighanne Higgins Lancaster UniversityAlison Jones Glasgow UniversityIhssan Jwijati Heriot WattHelena Kettleborough Lancaster UniversityAshleigh Logan Strathclyde UniversityArthur Male University College LondonTracey McLennan PrivateMaureen Michael Stirling UniversityJulie Osborn Plymouth UniversityMargaret Ritchie Strathclyde UniversityZoe Robinson KeeleJudy Scopes Queen Margaret UniversityJennifer Smith KeeleAnn Stewart University College LondonMorag Thow Glasgow Caledonian UniversityLavinia Udrea KeeleMary Welsh Strathclyde UniversityCherie Woolmer Glasgow University

Page 16 of 18

APPENDIX III RESEARCH OUTPUT BY RETREAT PARTICIPANTS

Research output from 5 out of 23 respondents in 2015 (response rate 31%)

Conference papers Gillies, D. (2015) Policy in transition: the emergence of ‘Tackling early school leaving’ (ELET) as an EU policy priority. (Conference paper) ECER Conference, Budapest, Sept., 2015. (Now also submitted as a journal article)Kempenaar, L.E. (2015) Women academics and career progression: Can structured writing retreats help? (oral presentation) SRHE Annual Conference, Newport, Wales, Dec. 2015.Kempenaar, L.E. and Donaldson, E. (2015) But we want to be taught: Experiences of using an engagement-through-partnership approach in a physiotherapy module. (Poster) CRLL Annual Conference, Glasgow, UK, Sept. 2015.Kempenaar, L.E., Donaldson, E. and Shanmugam, S. (2015) Practice what we preach: Teaching health promotion in Higher Education. SRHE Annual Conference, Newport, Wales, Dec. 2015.Udrea, L.I. (2015) An example of public policy for climate change mitigation and its ethical dimensions in a developed country (Oral presentation). British International Studies Association 40th Anniversary Conference, London, UK.Udrea, L.I. (2015) Does the public policy for influencing pro-environmental behaviour in the developed countries take into account people’s common future under climate change? (Poster presentation) UNESCO International Scientific Conference, Paris, France. Book chaptersGillies, D. (forthcoming). Developing the thoughtful practitioner. In: Peters, M., Cowie, B., & I. Menter (Eds.). A Companion to Research in Teacher Education. Berlin: Springer. Gillies, D. (forthcoming). Hannah Arendt, judgement, and school leadership. In: Courtney, S, McGinity, R., & Gunter, H. (Eds.), Educational leadership: Theorising professional practice in neoliberal times. Abingdon: Routledge. Journal articlesGillies, D. (in press). Visiting good company: Arendt and the development of the reflective practitioner. Journal of Education Administration and History. Gillies, D. & Mifsud, D. (submitted for peer review, Journal of Education Policy). Policy in transition: the emergence of tackling early school leaving (ESL) as EU policy priority.Kempenaar, L.E. and Murray, R. (in press) Writing by academics: A transactional and systems approach to academic writing behaviours. Higher Education Research and Development. McKechan, S. and Day, S. (in press) Do advanced qualifications equate to better mathematical knowledge for primary teaching? 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. 18(4), pp. 468-484, DOI: 10.1080/13676261.2014.992311Udrea, L. I. (2015) ‘13th Keele Annual Teaching Symposium 2015 - Flexible Learning at Keele University’ in Journal of Academic Development and Education, Year II nr 4, Keele University, August 2015, pp 85-91. OtherUdrea, L. I. (2015) Walking Through The Ashes [full-length novel] written during Keele University Be More Creative – Collaborative Fiction Student Writing Project, White Water Writers.

Page 17 of 18