annual report: developing research capacity: structured writing retreat 2013 (follow-up)

DEVELOPING

RESEARCH

CAPACITY

AT

UWS

STRUCTURED WRITING RETREATS 2013: FOLLOW UP EVALUATION

Professor Rowena Murray Dr Larissa Kempenaar

Structured Writing Retreats: 2013 Follow Up Evaluation

2

Executive Summary This report presents the findings of a follow up evaluation of structured writing retreats in 2013

facilitated by Professor Rowena Murray. All participants were invited to complete a SurveyMonkey

questionnaire regarding their research output and writing practices. Fifty-six participants

completed the online questionnaire.

A total of 20 participants reported research outputs. Fourteen of these were in the process of

writing and submitting journal articles. In addition, 18 thesis chapters had been written by 6

participants. It should be noted, however, that 14 out of 25 participants undertaking post graduate

studies did not complete the question on PhD thesis progress. Other outputs included conference

papers, abstracts, and book chapters. In total 65 research outputs, not including thesis chapters or

journal articles, had been produced by participants. A total of 242,000 words from research

outputs, other than journal articles, were reported by 13 out of 20 participants. This is the

equivalent word count of 3 completed social science based PhD theses. Twenty-one participants

reported taking part in writing groups. These writing groups on average consisted of 4 participants

who had bought into to the Structured Writing Retreat model. They met with varied frequencies,

ranging from daily to monthly to ad hoc meetings. Participants of these writing groups came from a

range of Universities and disciplines, and most consisted of both staff and students.

Participants used a range of writing strategies, which were similar for those with and without

research output, apart from the use of ‘writing prompts’ which was used more frequently by those

producing research output. Those who had research output, were, all bar one, in the process of

undertaking or had completed a PhD. In addition, they were also likely to have more than one type

of publication, e.g. both a journal article and conference presentation. Interestingly, those who

had attended more than one structured writing retreat were twice more likely to have any research

output than those who attended only once. Attendance at writing groups also produced a small

increase in research output. This suggests that increased attendance at writing retreats and writing

groups helps to ensure the longer term impact of the writing skills and culture developed during the

retreats.

To facilitate the ongoing development of a collaborative and productive research culture, this

report recommends that the University continues to offer Structured Writing retreats to its staff

and post graduate students. It also recommends supporting the development of writing groups

across the University. Finally, it suggests the use of word counts as a way of monitoring and

reporting on research activity, rather than relying solely on completed research outputs as they do

not reflect the ongoing efforts towards achievement of the Universities Strategic and Research

Objectives (Research and Knowledge Exchange Strategy 2011-2015).


3

Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................... 2 Contents ............................................................................................................. 3 Background ......................................................................................................... 4

Background ......................................................................................................... 4 Methods ............................................................................................................. 4 Results ............................................................................................................... 5

Participant characteristics .................................................................................... 5 Research outputs................................................................................................ 7 Writing Practices ................................................................................................ 8 Characteristics of those who report research output ................................................... 11

The impact of writing practices on research output .................................................... 11 Discussion .......................................................................................................... 14 Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 16 Research Outputs ................................................................................................. 17 References ......................................................................................................... 18

Image on front cover courtesy of Jennifer Jones.


4

Background In 2013 Professor Murray facilitated 9 structured writing retreats for staff and postgraduate

students from the University of the West of Scotland and other institutions. The structure of these

retreats has been described previously by Murray and Newton (2009). A total of 109 participants

attended the retreats comprising 66 different individuals. The research output and outcomes during

the writing retreats have been reported previously in an annual report (Murray and Kempenaar,

2014). The report described how Structured Writing Retreats support the University’s Strategic Plan

2008-2015 by providing the supportive environment where research and knowledge exchange can

take place across a range of departments and subject disciplines. Both staff and students who

attended the retreats described how writing skills and cultures were developed while improving

their research outputs. These findings are in agreement with existing evidence that these retreats

develop research identities and cultures (MacLeod et al., 2012; Murray, 2012; Murray and Newton,

2009). The report made the case 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.

However, as there is limited evidence to support the long term effect of writing retreats, the aim

of this evaluation is to explore the impact of writing retreats on writing practices, research output,

and the development of communities of practice in the academic environment of the participants

following attendance at one or more writing retreats. This report provides follow up data of the

participants who attended structured writing retreats in 2013.

Methods A survey design was chosen to capture the impact of structured writing retreats on written research

output and writing practices. This was partially based on the outputs recorded at the end of each

writing retreat in 2013 and characteristics of the participants. A SurveyMonkey questionnaire was

devised and all 66 participants who had attended writing retreats in 2013 were invited to

participate by email in March 2014. As we wanted to ask the participants about their publications

including the details for each publication, we decided to ask participants for their name and

surname at the beginning of the questionnaire to be transparent that the questionnaire was not

anonymous. The ‘open’ style of the questionnaire was also chosen as this reflected the non-

surveillance culture that is engendered at the writing retreats. In addition, the questions were of

an objective nature, rather than opinion based. Information provided was therefore deemed less

sensitive to participants. One participant expressed her desire not to be included in any evaluation,

while another participant refused to participate as they objected to the lack of anonymity in the

questionnaire. In response to this objection, the introductory statement for the questionnaire was

amended to ensure that the reason behind the lack of anonymity was clear to all participants. None

of the other participants objected to the open nature of the questionnaire. Two reminders were


5

sent to those participants who did not reply to the invitation. Finally, all members of staff and

students from UWS who had not responded were emailed individually to improve the response rate.

The survey was closed at the beginning of May 2014.

Results Fifty-six out of the 66 participants who had taken part in structured writing retreats completed the

evaluation. This is a response rate of 85%. Unfortunately, 4 participants only completed the

participant characteristics section, but did not answer the questions regarding research outputs.

Despite a follow up email, no further detail could be obtained from these participants.

Participant characteristics

Seventy-five percent of participants (n=42) were based in a University (see table 1). On average

these participants had worked in Universities for 10 years, with one person working for less than 1

year and one person having worked for 30 years in Universities. One of the participants was no

longer based within a University, but had been employed by a University for 27 years. Of the 42

participants who were a member of staff at a University, two-thirds (n=28) worked for the

University of the West of Scotland.

The highest level of education undertaken was at PhD or Professional Doctorate (ProfDoc) level

(n=20, 35.8%). Twenty-five participants had a postgraduate degree at MPhil or Masters level. When

asked if they were undertaking a postgraduate degree, 58.9% of participants (n=33) stated that

they were undertaking a postgraduate degree. The large majority of these participants were

currently undertaking a PhD (75.8%), 5 participants were undertaking a Masters degree (15.2%), 2 a

Professional Doctorate and 1 participant was undertaking a postgraduate diploma.

N % Response rate 56 85.0 Location

University staff member 42 75.0 Mean 10.0 (<1-30 years) University of the West of Scotland 28 66.7

Highest level of education PhD/ProfDoc 20 35.8

MPhil/ MA/MSs/Med/MBA/MRes 25 44.7 BA/BSc Hons 5 8.9

BA/BSc 1 1.8 PG Diploma/Certificate 5 9.2

Currently undertaken studies PhD/ProfDoc 27 48.1

MSc/Med/MA/International Masters Programme

5 8.9

Postgraduate Diploma 1 1.8 No 23 41.1

No. of Retreats attended Mean 1.8 (median=1, range 1-9) Table 1. Participant details


6

Figure 1. Attendance at writing retreats

The range of retreats that could have been attended was between 1 and 9. Most of the participants

(n=34, 61.8%) had attended 1 writing retreat. As the facilitator of the retreats (RM) was included in

the survey, she had attended the maximum number of retreats (9). Eleven participants had

attended 2 retreats (16.1%), while 8 participants (14.3%) had attended 3 retreats. Only 2

participants, besides the facilitator had attended more than this.

(Image Courtesy of Jennifer Jones)


7

Research outputs

Participants were asked to report if they had published in peer reviewed journals and at what stage

they were in the submission process. Fifteen separate journal articles had been submitted by 14

participants (see table 2). Six of these papers had been accepted and published1-6. Two papers

were awaiting review following a first submission. Another two other papers were awaiting review

following revisions and resubmission. Two papers were in the process of being revised for

resubmission. Only two papers were rejected, of which one was resubmitted and was pending

review by a different journal. In addition 4 participants commented on their intentions regarding

submitting articles for publication in journals. Three of these were in the process of completing

articles, while one participant planned to write an article at a subsequent retreat.

Progress N Accepted 6

Awaiting review first submission 2 Awaiting review for

resubmission 3

Rejected 2 Revising 2

Draft 3 Table 2. Progress of peer reviewed journal article submissions.

Only 6 participants stated they had completed any thesis chapters. Five of the 6 participants

provided information on the word counts for the work completed. A total of 18 chapters were

completed by 6 participants, comprising a total word count of 121,703 for 5 of these. This is

approximately 2,500 words per participant. Three participants provided information regarding the

progress of their thesis in other sections of the questionnaire. This included 2 completed theses and

1 planned submission of a thesis. No word counts were provided by these participants. Although 25

participants stated that they were undertaking a PhD or ProfDoc, 2 answered that they had not

completed any further chapters while 14 participants who were undertaking a PhD or ProfDoc did

not provide any detail for their progress.

Aside from thesis chapters and journal articles, 65 other types of publications were reported as

research outputs (see table 3). This included 13 conference submissions which included conference

papers, abstracts, workshop abstracts and posters. Details were provided for one of the conference

articles7. Five participants had written 9 book chapters between them. Four of these were

accepted for print8-11. The other 5 book chapters were in draft at the time of the survey. One

participant revised a total of 15 chapters.

A total of 6 funding applications, 7 research proposals, 5 ethics applications and 1 PhD studentship

application were written. One participant completed 3 postgraduate assignments, while 2 book

proposals were written by another participant. One participant completed an annual review and

one wrote a questionnaire. One participant completed two case studies for JISC and IDEAS network,


8

which were shared via their websites. A final participant had written several thousand words for an

MPhil/PhD study, but as they were unable to submit this for feedback had withdrawn from their

programme of study. This work was now used in collaborative research with colleagues instead. At

the time of the survey this was at an early stage of piloting method while the participant was

seeking ethical approval. For 39 of the 65 publications word counts were provided which added to a

word count of 121,000 words newly written and 23,000 words revised by participants following

participation in the writing retreat.

Publication N Word count Conference submissions 13 27,150 (n=11)

Book chapters 9 written 15 revised

32,000 (n=5) 23,000 (n=5)

Funding applications 6 7,500 (n=3) Research proposals 7 6,050 (n=6) Ethics applications 5 7,000 (n=2)

Post graduate assignments 3 12,000 (n=3) PhD Studentship application 1 300 (n=1)

Book proposals 2 5,000 (n=2) Annual review 1 Unknown

Research methods 1 1,000 (n=1) Total 65 121,000 (n=39)

Table 3. Research outputs other than journal articles

Writing Practices

When asked about writing groups, out of the 56 participants, 21 participants (37.5%) reported that

they took part in writing groups since attending the retreat. The frequency of writing groups varied

between: daily, in the form of a writing café (n=1), once a week (n=1), every 2 weeks (n=1), once

or twice a month (n=2), monthly (n=7) and infrequent or ad hoc (n=8). Two participants reported

that the frequency of the writing group depended on the time of year, as they met more frequently

in the summer, but infrequently during term times because of teaching commitments.

In terms of how often participants attended writing groups answers varied. About half of those

reporting the availability of writing groups attended most groups (n=12), whereas one person

attended when they had a deadline approaching (n=1), infrequently (n=7) and one reported not

attending at all (n=1). The number of participants attending the writing groups varied between a

minimum of 1 and a maximum of 8. On average 4 participants attended each writing group.

Nearly all participants who reported being part of writing groups stated that groups were

multidisciplinary (n=18). Of these 18, 11 participants reported to have group members from

multiple universities. Five participants reported to be part of uni-disciplinary writing groups.

Two participants reported to be part of writing groups made up of PhD students only, of which one

appeared to be multidisciplinary, whereas the other group comprised of students from the same

department. Five participants stated that they were part of a mixed staff/student writing groups.

Two groups were reported to consist of participants of writing retreats. One of these was


9

multidisciplinary, while the other consisted of staff from one department. One participant reported

to be in a group which included non-University members.

While nearly all participants reported that writing groups took place in the University (n=19) some

reported writing in different venues. One person reported to meet in a café. This person was not

based within a University. To find out more about the workings of this writing group, the

participant was followed up for more information. This writing group consisted of 2 people who

would meet up in a café outside of working hours, where they would write for an assigned period of

time. Having more than 1 person there also meant that equipment was secure when one of the two

would attend the bathroom. As mentioned previously, one participant reported that she went to a

writing café. This participant was also followed up for more information. This writing café is part of

Plymouth University and comprises a coffee house within the University which is designed to

provide a collaborative space for staff and students to write. In addition the Writing Café, as it is

called, includes the presence of writing mentors at scheduled times, writing workshops and other

writing related activities. The people who developed the Writing Café have published a blog to

allow those interested to follow its developments at http://blogs.plymouth.ac.uk/thewritingcafe.

When asked how many hours participants typically wrote in a week, answers varied greatly. Five

participants stated that they did not write at all while 19 participants out of the 49 who responded

reported that they wrote for a certain numbers of hours per week and provided a range of hours

per week or reported to not have a typical week. The variability was explained by several

participants as a result of task dependence. For example, one participant wrote that she spent 40+

hours per week on writing as she was coming near the end of her PhD. For those participants who

provided a range of hours the average number of hours was included. This meant that participants

on average spend 8.6 hours per week on writing (median 6 hours, range 0-40). Although this

appears a large numbers of hours per week, it should be taken into consideration that this

evaluation included post graduate students. It is also not possible to state when these writing hours

took place, as they may have taken place outside of work hours.

Participants were asked to rate how often they used specific writing strategies. The strategy that

was used most was that of ‘setting goals for writing’, followed closely by ‘peer discussion’ and ‘free

writing’. These are all strategies that are embedded in the structure of the writing retreat and this

finding concurs with feedback from the participants directly following the retreats which confirmed

that they found these strategies very helpful. The strategies that were least used, and some

participants were unfamiliar with were Murray’s 10 prompts (Murray, 2013), and discussion journal

feedback. ‘Murray’s 10 prompts’ refers to a list of questions which assist the writer to produce an

abstract in a short space of time. The purpose of writing the abstract is to enable the writer to sum

up the essence of the whole paper which helps the writer to plan their writing and maintain an

overview. Interestingly, ‘writing an abstract’ was a strategy commonly used by participants, but

they may not have been familiar with the specific prompts suggested. It is also a strategy which is

not included as standard in the retreats. The low use of discussing journal feedback as a strategy

http://blogs.plymouth.ac.uk/thewritingcafe


10

makes sense as this depends on the type of publication that participants had been working on and

the stage they were at in terms of submitting a journal article. Not surprisingly, closer inspection of

the data revealed that this strategy was not used often by those who had not submitted a journal

article. Twenty-five out of 39 participants who reported that they had not submitted a journal

article since the retreat, ‘rarely’ or ‘never’ had used this strategy. On the other hand this strategy

was used regularly by 10 of the 14 participants who had submitted journal articles.

Strategy Ranking Setting Goals for Writing 1

Peer Discussion 2 Free Writing 3

Writing an Abstract 4 Detailed Outlining 5

Writing to Prompts 6 Peer Review 7

Discussing Extracts from Published Articles

8

Analysing Abstracts 9 Generative Writing 10

Discussing Journal Feedback 11 Murray’s 10 Prompts 12

Table 4.Writing strategies in order of use following retreat

Other strategies used by participants included: using the writing timed structure at home by

entering the times on a mobile device with an alarm; online discussions of articles which focused

thought processes and writing into discussion board ‘posts’; visualising ideas in collages and

drawings prior to writing; collaborative and co-writing; timed writing to goals; snack writing and

the Pomodoro Technique (25 minute blocks of writing interspersed by 5 minute breaks).


11

Characteristics of those who report research output

In terms of the level of education of those who submitted articles; those who had submitted journal

articles, were, all bar one, either in the process of completing a PhD or ProfDoc, or had already

completed a PhD. When looking at other types of publications, this pattern was repeated. Out of 18

participants who reported other publications, only 3 did not have a PhD or ProfDoc nor were

undertaking them. No relationship could be found between the years of working in a University,

which suggests that it is more important to have, or be undertaking a PhD or ProfDoc, than how

long a participant had worked for a University.

We noted that out of 14 participants who had submitted journal articles, 12 also had completed

other types of publications (out of 18 people in total), such as book and thesis chapters and

conference presentations. This would suggest that those who had been effective in creating

research outputs, tended to publish their work in more than one format. This concurs with the

literature which suggests that there is a trend for scientific journals to have a core of efficient,

prolific writers who regularly publish, while a large number of researchers and academics are not

published (Mayrath 2008).

The impact of writing practices on research output

We wanted to see if the length of time since last attending a retreat bore relevance to the

participants’ research output. Five retreats took place during the first half of the year and 4 took

place after the summer break during the last 4 months of the year. Surprisingly, this revealed that

8 out of 16 participants (50%) who had last attended a retreat before the summer as opposed to 8

out of 40 participants (20%) who last attended a retreat after the summer submitted articles to

journals. This may reflect the lengthy nature of the journal submission processes.

In light of the immediate retreat evaluations, where participants suggested the cumulative benefit

of regular attendance at retreats, we explored if increased attendance at the writing retreats had

an impact on research output (see table 5). This highlighted that participants were nearly twice

more likely to have research output if they had attended more than one retreat. Out of 34

participants who attended 1 retreat, 10 (29.4%) indicated that they had published since attendance

in journals and/or in other formats. Three of these participants had also completed chapters for

their theses. Of the participants who had attended more than 1 retreat (n=22), 10 (45.4%) indicated

that they had worked towards a publication in a journal, while 13 (59.1%) had also written in other

formats. Five of these participants had also completed chapters for their theses. This suggests that

increased attendance at writing retreats helps to ensure the longer term impact of the writing skills

and culture developed during the retreats.


12

Research

output

N

%

Single attendance (n=34)

No 22 64.7

Yes 12 35.3

No 8 36.4

Multiple attendance (n=22) Yes 14 63.6

Table 5. Number of attendances at retreats in relation to research output

We also wanted to explore if the attendance at writing groups had an impact on the research

output (see table 6). Twenty-one participants reported that they attended writing groups.

However, 6 of these participants reported that they only attended these groups infrequently or

rarely. We therefore concluded that, in effect, only 15 participants attended writing groups.

Of those who attended writing group 8 participants reported their research output, while 7 did not

report any. Of those who did not attend any writing groups (n=41), 18 reported research output,

while 23 did not. Although the difference between those who do and those who do not attend

writing group is small, there is a trend which suggests that writing groups increase the productivity

of those that attend them.

Research

output

N

%

Attending writing groups (n=15)

No 7 46.7

Yes 8 53.3

No 23 56.1

Not attending writing group (n=41) Yes 18 43.9

Table 6. Attendance at writing groups in relation to research output

One of the items of the evaluation was concerned with the writing strategies used most by

participants following the retreats. For the purpose of analysis, the answers were ranked in order

of most used (1) to least used (2). Previous studies have explored the characteristics of successful

writers, and we wanted to know if certain writing strategies were employed by those who reported

on their research output. Table 7 provides an overview of the results when the ranking of writing

strategies were compared for those who reported any publications and those who did not report

any. Although the top 2 strategies are the same for those who do and do not report publications,

‘writing to prompts’ was rated as being more often used by those who published, than those who

did not. Conversely, those who did not report publications reported that they used ‘Discussing

extracts from published articles’ and ‘analysing abstracts’ more often than those who did report

publications.


13

With research output

Without research output

Overall

Setting Goals for Writing

1 1 1

Peer Discussion 2 2 2 Free Writing 4 3 3

Writing an Abstract 6 4 4 Detailed Outlining 5 7 5

Writing to Prompts 3 9 6 Peer Review 7 8 7

Discussing Extracts from Published

Articles

10 5 8

Analysing Abstracts 9 6 9 Generative Writing 8 10 10 Discussing Journal

Feedback 12 11 11

Murray’s 10 Prompts 11 12 12

Table 7. Writing strategies in order of use following retreat versus reported publishing

(Image Courtesy of Jennifer Jones)


14

Discussion The findings of this evaluation are generally positive. The word count produced totalled

approximately 242,000 for only 13 out of 22 participants who reported on publications, not

including journal publications. This meant that these 13 participants wrote an average of 18,500

each. Assuming that those 9 participants who did not report their word counts produced a similar

word count, this would add up to about 407,000 words, the equivalent of 4 average sized novels or

5 completed social science based PhD theses.

When reviewing the number of attendances at retreats in relation to reported publications, it

became clear that those who had attended more than retreat were nearly twice more likely to

report research output. It is not clear whether or not Structured Writing Retreats are responsible

for the increase in research output, as there could be a number of reasons for this. For example, it

could be that those who are more prolific in their writing choose to attend more retreats to sustain

their level of productivity. On the other hand, attending more than one retreat may have

reinforced healthy practices in writing, while sustaining developing research communities, enabling

their productivity.

In terms of the different ranking of writing strategies, it was interesting to note that analysing and

discussing published articles and/or abstracts was used more by those who did not report

publications than those who did. This would seem to make sense, as these strategies are

recommended to those who are newer to publishing as a way of becoming familiar with what is

expected of them when submitting papers or articles for publication.

It was encouraging to see that 15 participants were actively part of writing groups, indicating that

the skills and communities of practice developed at writing retreats can transfer to the academic

work environment. Some participants stated that they felt less isolated and guilty when writing in

groups. Several participants described how they had moved forward during the retreat(s) and while

some managed to carry on with this in their own work environment, others struggled to find time

for one reason or another. For example, one participant described the resistance from their line

manager to allow protected time for writing groups. Most writing groups were described as

consisting of participants across Universities, across disciplines and many were for both staff and

postgraduate students. For example, one of the local writing groups incorporates staff and students

from UWS, Glasgow University and Strathclyde University. Another example of writing groups

working across organisations was described by one participant who described how a writing group

between HE and FE college partners was used to report on their joint working. One participant also

suggested that writing groups can take place ‘virtually’ rather than physically, by using Skype or

email between participants for peer discussion and support.

However, some frustration was also reported when people did not show up or did not follow the

retreat structures. Some participants also described a seasonal phenomenon of writing, whereby


15

they did not attend many writing groups during term times, but frequently used writing groups

during holidays. This may be a strategy to develop when staff struggle to manage both teaching and

research activity. While most writing groups appeared to use rooms on campus, some used other

types of venues. For example, one participant met up with a peer in a café outside the University,

while another described an on-campus ‘writing café’ at another University. This was echoed in the

request of one participant who suggested a ‘retreat style writing room’ where staff and students

could write in a quiet space without being disturbed. This could be an alternative method to

writing groups, and would be worth considering for future development. Interestingly, following

the completion of this evaluation several UWS participants undertook a writing retreat on a train

journey from Glasgow to Mallaig. This was chosen as many participants found that they had been

writing on previous train journeys, there being few distractions. This journey takes approximately 5

hours each way and costs at most £60 for a return. Participants used their own laptops and brought

provisions for the journey. Photos of this retreat can be found throughout this report.

However, this evaluation can only present a conservative estimate of research outputs of those

attending structured writing retreats as many did not provide answers to the questions nor reported

word counts for those who did. In addition to participants not reporting word counts, it is worth

noting that, while 49 out of 52 respondents provided an answer to the question regarding journal

submission, only 14 out of 52 respondents provided any answers to the question regarding other

types of research output. It should also be considered that while 27 participants reported

undertaking a PhD or ProfDoc only 6 reported that they had progressed with writing their thesis

while the remaining 21 did not answer the question regarding thesis progress. Again, although 11 of

these 27 students were attending writing groups, only 3 reported progress while the remaining 8

students did not provide an answer to the question regarding thesis progress. This suggests that it

may not be easy for participants to report progress. It may be that participants did not have easy

access to this kind of detail and did not keep a note of newly written words or the number of words

revised in the process of writing. Submission of journal articles can be seen as a clear milestone in

the writing process with a definable word count, while this may not be as transparent in the

process of writing and editing a thesis. However, in terms of the sense of achievement that can be

obtained related to the word count for newly written or edited work, this could be promoted as a

tool. Furthermore, research output reporting for REF2014 is concerned with completed submissions

of journal articles or other types of publication. However, for the purpose of reporting research

output from a University’s perspective, it would suggest that to enable the University to report on

progress rather than mere completion of research outputs, it should be considered good practice

for staff and post graduate students to take note of word counts.


16

Conclusion The results of this evaluation should be seen as promising. Despite the shortage of data provided by

some participants, one third of the participants are actively involved in producing research outputs.

Based on the data provided, the equivalent of 3 completed theses had been produced in the period

of one year. However, the results of this evaluation have been limited by the lack of reporting on

progress for some participants. While this may be due to a lack of progress, we suggest that this

may be due to a need for measurable, ongoing monitoring of progress in research output. Rather

than solely relying on completed research outputs, we recommend the simple, but effective use of

recording word counts in the process of writing. This means that the individual may have a more

visible record of achievement, while the University is able to monitor and report more positively on

its research activity.

This evaluation has demonstrated that participants were more likely to have research outputs if

they had attended more than one writing retreat. This suggests that increased attendance at

retreats is generally beneficial to individuals and the University in terms of research productivity.

Furthermore, the collaborative culture developed at writing retreats has successfully been

transferred by some participants by means of writing groups. Innovative use of the principles of

group writing has led to the development of a writing café in one University, while others used a

train journey to facilitate a writing group. It would be worth considering how the University can

support the continued development of a positive community of writing within its existing

infrastructure, for example by providing an assigned writing space on campus. The combination of

regular attendance at Structured Writing Retreats and the ongoing development of a positive

writing culture within the University. and in collaboration with other partners, will ensure that UWS

will continue to meet its Strategic and Research Objectives (Research and Knowledge Exchange

Strategy 2011-2015).


17

Research Outputs

1. Wiggins, S., Moore-Millar, K., & Thomson, A. (2014). Can you pull it off? Appearance

modifying behaviours adopted by wig users with alopecia in social interactions. Body

image, 11(2), 156-166.

2. Welsh, M. (2012). Student perceptions of using the PebblePad e-portfolio system to support

self-and peer-based formative assessment. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 21(1), 57-

83.

3. Higgins, H., Thow, M., Smith, F. and Hebenton, J. (2013) Knowledge and understanding of

vascular disease risk factor modification in peripheral vascular disease amputees BACPAR

(39) 18-25.

4. McNaughton, M.J. (2014). Our Crop, Our Land: Exploring the issue of Land Grab through

Drama and Global Storylines. Drama Journal. 20(1), 11-21.

5. McNaughton, M.J. (2014). From Acting to Action: Developing Environmental Citizenship

through Global Storylines Drama. Journal of Environmental Education. 45(1), 16-36.

6. Gormally, S., & Coburn, A. (2013). Finding Nexus: connecting youth work and research

practices. British Educational Research Journal.

7. Article submitted for ICICTE 2014 conference. Proposal has been accepted for publication

subject to peer review Title: The loneliness of the long distance learner. Is student

alienation in postgraduate alcohol and drugs studies students related to academic

assessment? More details can be found here: http://www.icicte.org/ICICTE14About.htm -

The article had been accepted for a conference

8. McNaughton, M.J. (2013) Good practice in teacher education: Two case studies. In

ESD/GCE: A guide to good practice in teacher education. S. Inman and M. Ritchie (Eds.).

London: WWF-UK

9. The Healthy Heart Book 2013 Human Kinetics

10. You Had To Be There: Memories of the Glasgow Apollo Audience) accepted and due to be

published in July 2014 within Sites of Popular Music Heritage: Memories, Histories, Places

(Routledge)

11. I do not have details of the publication yet - the book will be published in Spanish with the

editor based at the University of Jaen.

http://www.icicte.org/ICICTE14About.htm


18

References 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.

Mayrath, M. C. (2008) Attributions of productive authors in educational psychology

journals. Educational Psychology Review, 20(1), 41-56.

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) Writing for Academic Journals (3rd Ed). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Murray, R. and Kempenaar, L. (2014) Developing research capacity at UWS: Annual Report on

Structured Writers’ Retreats January-December 2013. Ayr: University of the West of Scotland.