Meeting Needs: A model for writers' group sustainability

Abstract

Writers’ groups have been found to offer many potential benefits to academic writers at all levels. A problem facing those who want to start up writers’ groups however, is that there is no standard recipe for how a group should function: writers’ groups can exist in many shapes, colours and sizes. While this lack of absolutes offers adaptability, the lack of a precise ‘how-to’ can mean that not all writers’ groups function as well as hoped. Some groups might prosper for years, while others that begin with a great deal of enthusiasm, might quickly die out. To examine the question of what makes writers’ groups sustainable, or not, audio recordings from writing retreats, writers’ logs from PhD students in the natural science, individual correspondence, and focus group recordings were used. Reasons group members specifically gave for continuing in their writers’ groups, or deciding to leave, were isolated and analysed. The results suggest that if group members’ needs are being met, the groups will flourish (for as long as members need them); on the other hand, if members’ needs are not being met, members will leave, and the group will likely fizzle out. Four categories of needs were identified: logistical needs; purpose/procedural needs; safety needs, and the need for mutual support. Using the results of the analysis and an existing model for starting writers’ groups, a model for sustainable writers’ groups was derived. The model is being tested and adapted; a preliminary evaluation suggests that it may function well as a flexible recipe for setting up writers’ groups that are more likely to flourish than fizzle.

Full text

EAPRIL 2022
CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS
EAPRIL Conference
23 - 25 November 2022
Nijmegen, The Netherlands
ISSUE 8 – March 2023
ISSN 2406-4653

CONFERENCE & PROGRAMMING COMMITTEE 2022
EAPRIL EXECUTIVE BOARD
Martijn Willemse, the Netherlands – Chair of EAPRIL
Nick Gee – UK - Chair elect of EAPRIL
Zarina Charlesworth – Switzerland
Patrick Belpaire - Belgium
Harry Stokhof – The Netherlands
Essi Ryymin - Finland
Elke Emmers - Belgium
EAPRIL OFFICE - BELGIUM
Stef Heremans - Association Manager
Lore Verschakelen
Lisa Vanhaeren
Ruben Hendrickx
Havva Akcaoglu

PREFACE
EAPRIL is …
EAPRIL is the European Association for Practitioner Research on Improving Learning. The association
promotes practice-based and practitioner research on learning issues in the context of formal, informal,
non-formal, lifelong learning and professional development with the aim to professionally develop and
train educators and, as a result, to enhance practice. Its focus entails learning of individuals (from
kindergarten over students in higher education to workers at the workplace), teams, organisations and
networks.
More specifically
 Promotion and development of learning and instruction practice within Europe, by means of
practice-based research.
 To promote the development and distribution of knowledge and methods for practice-based
research and the distribution of research results on learning and instruction in specific
contexts.
 To promote the exchange of information on learning and instruction practice, obtained by
means of practice-based research, among the members of the association and among other
associations, by means of an international network for exchange of knowledge and experience
in relation to learning and instruction practice.
 To establish an international network and communication forum for practitioners working in
the field of learning and instruction in education and corporate contexts and develop
knowledge on this issue by means of practically-oriented research methods.
 To encourage collaboration and exchange of expertise between educational practitioners,
trainers, policy makers and academic researchers with the intent to support and improve the
practice of learning and instruction in education and professional contexts.
 By the aforementioned goals the professional development and traning of practitioners,
trainers, educational policy makers, developers, educational researchers and all involved in
education and learning in its broad context are stimulated.
Practice based and Practitioner research
Practice-based and practitioner research focuses on research for, with and by professional practice,
starting from a need expressed by practice. Academic and practitioner researchers play an equally
important role in the process of sharing, constructing and creating knowledge to develop practice and
theory. Actors in learning need to be engaged in the multidisciplinary and sometimes trans-disciplinary
research process as problem-definers, researchers, data gatherers, interpreters, and implementers.
Practice-based and Practitioner research results in actionable knowledge that leads to evidence-informed
practice and knowledge-in-use. Not only the utility of the research for and its impact on practice is a
quality standard, but also its contribution to existing theory on what works in practice, its validity and
transparency are of utmost importance.

Context
EAPRIL encompasses all contexts where people learn, e.g. schools of various educational levels,
general, vocational and professional education; organisations and corporations, and this across fields,
such as teacher education, engineering, medicine, nursing, food, agriculture, nature, business, languages,
… All levels, i.e. individual, group, organisation and context, are taken into account.
For whom
Practitioner researchers, academic researchers, teachers, teachers educators, professional trainers,
educational technologists, curriculum developers, educational policy makers, school leaders, staff
developers, learning consultants, people involved in organisational change and innovation, L&D
managers, corporate learning directors, academics in the field of professional learning and all who are
interested in improving the learning and development of praxis.
How
Via organising the annual EAPRIL conference where people meet, exchange research, ideas, projects,
and experiences, learn and co-create, for example via workshops, training, educational activities,
interactive sessions, school or company visits, transformational labs, and other opportunities for
cooperation and discussion. Via supporting thematic sub communities ‘Clouds’, where people find each
other because they share the same thematic curiosity. Cloud coordinators facilitate and stimulate
activities at the conference and during the year. Activities such as organizing symposia, writing joined
projects, speed dating, inviting keynotes and keeping up interest/expertise list of members are organised
for cloud participants in order to promote collaboration among European organisations in the field of
education or research, including companies, national and international authorities. Via newsletters,
access to the EAPRIL conference presentations and papers on the conference website, conference
proceedings, regular updates on cloud meetings and activities throughout the year, access to Frontline
Learning Research journal, and a discount for EAPRIL members to the annual conference.
More information on the upcoming 2023 Conference as well as some afterglow moments of the 2022
Conference can be found on our conference website http://www.eapril.org.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Obese curriculum: the main pitfall in moving learning into real world practice – Morteza Karami,
Jeroen J. G. van Merrienboer 1
Professionalizing primary school mathematics teacher educators - Ronald Keijzer, Marjolein
Kool, Michiel Veldhuis, Sonja Stuber, Jus Roelofsliy 10
Constructing a test instrument (SOWIS-L) for measuring the professional knowledge of trainee
teachers in the subject if social sciences – Sabine Manzel, Dorothee Gronostay 23
Users’ conceptions of the open access journal in the sector of the Finnish University of Applied
Sciences - Ilkka Väänänen, Mervi Friman, Mauri Kantola & Karoliina Nikula 36
Yearly trends in student motivation to learn at an online university and comparison by academic
year – Yasuhisa Kato 47
Transitioning into new stages of learning: developing competences and identities for success -
Jennifer Boyle, Joanna Royle & Andrew Struan 66
Digitality and stem in education: a qualitative pedagogical competence framework -
Alexander F. Koch & Anja Küttel 77
Learning to teach writing – an intervention to promote teachers’ skills - Valentin Unger, Tobias
Dörfler, Jan Hochweber & Cornelia Glaser 88
Student perceptions of knowledge transfer: augmenting a graduate educational psychology program
– Bobby Hoffman 106
The unreliability of conference proposal review: don’t be a judge be a teacher – Elke Emmers,
Martijn Willemse, Guido Verhaert, Lisette Munneke & Harry Stokhof 119
Internships in times of crisis: collaborative production of instructional videos at a distance -
Robert A.P. Reuter, Alain Reeff & Gilbert Busana 133
Designing dilemma trainings as liminal spaces for behavioral change – Tom De Schryver 143
Developing citizenship skills through cultural heritage and social media networks -
Sofia Bosatelli, Cristina De Michele, Maria Elena Colombo, Claudia Fredella, Germana Mosconi
& Silvia Negri .159
Does the earth need a doctor? Stimulating thinking skills about sustainability through philosophical
dialogue - Laura Van den Broeck, Eef Cornelissen, Veerle Verschoren, Filip Mennes, Steven
Raeman & Jelle De Schrijver 174
Guideline for an effective digital pedagogical setup: a first service – Sandrine Favre & Alexander
F. Koch 186
Meeting needs: a model for writers’ group sustainability – Sarah S. Haas 203

Learning to understand digitality? A motivational student perspective on what is taught at school -
Alexander F. Koch 215
Stem teachers vs “troublemaker” students: a view beyond classroom management – Alexander F.
Koch 232
Lifelong learning: cooperation within engineering education and industry – Liudmilla
Bolsunovskava 247
Intertwining technical and educational change with templates in a virtual learning environment -
Francine Behnen, Margreeth Themmen, Jort Harmsen, Greet van Terwisga & Patrick van
Aalst 254

203
MEETING NEEDS: A MODEL FOR WRITERS’ GROUP
SUSTAINABILITY
Sarah S. Haas
Department of Science Education, University of Copenhagen, Niels Bohr Bygningen,
Universitetsparken 5, DK-2100 København Ø Denmark, sshaas@mac.com
ABSTRACT
Writers’ groups have been found to offer many potential benefits to academic writers
at all levels. A problem facing those who want to start up writers’ groups however,
is that there is no standard recipe for how a group should function: writers’ groups
can exist in many shapes, colours and sizes. While this lack of absolutes offers
adaptability, the lack of a precise ‘how-to’ can mean that not all writers’ groups
function as well as hoped. Some groups might prosper for years, while others that
begin with a great deal of enthusiasm, might quickly die out. To examine the question
of what makes writers’ groups sustainable, or not, audio recordings from writing
retreats, writers’ logs from PhD students in the natural science, individual
correspondence, and focus group recordings were used. Reasons group members
specifically gave for continuing in their writers’ groups, or deciding to leave, were
isolated and analysed. The results suggest that if group members’ needs are being
met, the groups will flourish (for as long as members need them); on the other hand,
if members’ needs are not being met, members will leave, and the group will likely
fizzle out. Four categories of needs were identified: logistical needs;
purpose/procedural needs; safety needs, and the need for mutual support. Using the
results of the analysis and an existing model for starting writers’ groups, a model
for sustainable writers’ groups was derived. The model is being tested and adapted;
a preliminary evaluation suggests that it may function well as a flexible recipe for
setting up writers’ groups that are more likely to flourish than fizzle.

204
WRITERS’ GROUPS: BENEFICIAL TO WRITERS, BUT HARD TO KNOW
HOW TO DO ‘EM
There is by now a substantial body of research indicating that writers’ groups offer
many potential benefits for academic writers of all levels. People “writ[ing] in social
spaces” (Murray 2014), whether in writers’ groups or on writing retreats, have long
been conceptualized as communities of practice, which have been found to, among
other things, provide emotional safety for community members (Badenhorst et al.,
2019; Thesen, 2014), and open a space for critical reflection (Haas et al, 2020;
Kaufhold & Yencken, 2021). Writers’ group members find that they have increased
output, fewer feelings of isolation, and better written products (Aitchison & Guerin,
2014; Elbow, 1998; Kornhaber et al., 2016). As the benefits are becoming
increasingly well-known, writers’ groups and retreats should, and are, becoming
increasingly mainstream (Murray, 2009; Déri et al., 2022).
No One-Size-Fits-All Writers’ Group: A double-edged sword
While there has been plentiful research revealing the benefits of writers’ groups, and
while there has thus far been none indicating that writers’ groups pose drawbacks to
writers, a known problem is that writers’ groups can exist in so many shapes and
sizes that there is no one set recipe for establishing and maintaining a group that will
work for everyone. While this lack of an absolute offers the advantages of flexibility
and adaptability, it can also mean that people who want to initiate their own groups
might run into trouble if they are 1) at a loss regarding where and how to start, or 2)
if they set up a group that might not function in a sustainable way.
In an earlier attempt to address the first problem (knowing how to get started), a
“Pick & Mix” model was developed (Haas 2014). This model put forth the myriad
ways writers’ groups could vary, and suggested that if writers
a) knew that there was no one recipe they had to follow, and they
b) knew about the many different elements that could be mixed
together, as it suited them, and they
c) tried out a few of those elements so they could experience what it
was they wanted, they could then set up custom writers’ groups
that suited them, resting assured that they were not ‘doing it
wrong’.

205
After several years of using the Pick-n-Mix model to help PhD writers successfully
set up their own writers’ groups, but subsequently watching some of these groups
quickly fizzle out, while others flourished for years, it became apparent that while
this approach might help with some of the barriers to getting a writers’ group started,
it did not seem to satisfactorily address issues of sustainability.
WHY DO SOME WRITERS’ GROUPS FLOURISH WHILE OTHERS
FIZZLE?
Since 2009, I have run my Writer Development (WD) course for a mixture of
master’s students, PhD students, post-docs, and faculty members. The WD courses
are “guided writing retreats”12 that offer writing time interspersed with writing
workshops. One of the workshops is devoted to helping delegates set up their own
writers’ groups. They set up and participate in these groups as part of the course
requirements or recommendations (requirements for students; recommendations for
faculty members). Following Girgensohn (2010) It is required or recommended that
participants meet in groups (either virtually or in-person) at least twice, for at least
two hours each time.
As was hoped, many of the writers’ groups continued to function well beyond the
minimum 4-hour course requirement. Some have been lasting years after the course
has been finished, consistently recruiting new members as older members completed
their theses and moved on. However, there were some groups that did die out after
they had put in the compulsory (or recommended) four hours of writers’ group time.
While there were more groups that continued on than died out, it is still relevant to
know what factors contribute to the difference. Answers were sought in data that had
been accumulating for 15+ years of social-writing-related work. In the spring of
2020, Covid 19 provided the gift of time necessary to examine data that had long
lain dormant.
12 A “guided writing retreat” is the name I give to a retreat that uses Murray and
Newton’s (2009) “structured retreat” but also includes writing workshops.

206
The Informants: Voices from writers writing together
In addition to the WD courses described above, I have been leading or been a “start-
up leader” (Haas 2014) for writers’ groups of undergraduates, master’s students, PhD
students and faculty members since 2002. The data used in this study have come,
with permission, from all of these sources. Some of the participants of the writers’
groups and retreats kept writers’ logs, which include reflections and general thoughts
about writing and writers’ groups. Explicit permission was given by 1432 writers for
their writers’ logs to be used for research-related purposes. In addition to the
reflective writing from participants, audio-recordings of group discussions in
writers’ groups, and on retreats, as well as the debriefs at the ends of the writing
retreats were considered. While explicit permission was given from all participants
for all audio recordings, there were a few participants who were uncomfortable that
the recordings be used for research, or other times when permission was not
specifically sought to use the recordings for research-related purposes. These
recordings were eliminated. Along with the logs and audio recordings, I consulted
my own notes taken during writers’ group meetings and on retreats. A focus group
was formed of eight people who had been part of a writers’ group where four people
stayed, and four people left the group. Finally, if there was permission to do so, I
considered emails from writers who sometimes send spontaneous thoughts and
reflections. Thus, the data collected from research writers in social writing situations
include:
 reflective logs from 1432 research writers
 audio recordings of meetings from 25 writers’ groups
 my own notes from 86 Writer Development courses
 audio recordings of group discussions and debriefs from 59 WD courses or
other retreats
 an audio-recording of a focus group that met to specifically discuss why they
chose to stay or leave a writers’ group they had been involved in
The ± 2500 writers who have generously agreed to allow others to learn from their
insights and thoughts have come from a wide range of disciplines, from nine
different universities in six different countries.

207
Data Analysis
To treat the data openly, without any pre-determined categories, an inductive
approach to qualitative content analysis was taken, using Cho and Lee’s (2014, p.15)
overview as a rough guide. Data were reduced by going through writers’ logs,
recordings, emails, and notes, and isolating anything that was related to the
functioning of writers’ groups—more specifically anything that gave indication or
insight into why someone had decided to attend writers’ group meetings, or to skip
them; to continue being a member of the writers’ group, or to drop out. Each discrete
extract was entered (transcribed or copied) into separate lines on a spreadsheet, and
subsequently categorised through several rounds of coding.
RESULTS
The results of the analysis suggested a deceptively simple answer: people stay in
writers’ groups because their needs are being met; they leave writers’ groups when
their needs are not being met. In this section, this obvious answer will be nuanced
by introducing four different categories of needs that were identified, and then
suggesting an adaptation to the original pick-n-mix model.
If members’ needs are met, the group is more likely to flourish
The needs of writers in groups could be separated into four categories: logistical
needs, safety needs, purpose and procedural needs, and the need for mutual support.
Each of these will be discussed in turn, with relevant extracts from the data used as
examples.
Logistical needs
On a very basic level, if people are involved in a writers’ group that is logistically
suitable, they are more likely to stay in the group. Logistics include day of the week,
time of day, location of meetings, length of meetings, etc. Simply put, if it is
relatively convenient, in an already busy life, for someone to attend a writers’ group,
they will be more likely to attend than if it takes effort to get to the writers’ group.

208
This works on the same principle as the advice to join a gym on the way home from
work rather than one in the opposite direction of home: we are more likely to do
something we know is good for us (but takes effort) if we don’t have to make a lot
of extra effort just to get started.
Easy logistics can work to keep people who do want to attend group meetings going
to meetings: “I really liked going to the writers’ group. I think it was important that
I didn’t have to commute though. If I’d had to bike 30 minutes for a 2-hour meeting
[like some of the others did], I probably wouldn’t have gone, even though I know
it’s helpful”. Easy logistics can also tip the balance for people who are less
committed as well: “I didn’t usually really feel like going to the writers’ group, but
it was right there next to my office, so I decided to go anyway, and I was always glad
I did.”
If the logistics get complicated, or too inconvenient, it can cause people who might
otherwise be committed to drop out; “I really liked the writers’ group, and I was
always efficient there. But it was always held on a really busy day of the week, so I
couldn’t make it work”. Inconvenient logistics also helped people who were more
undecided make the decision not to go: “Yeah, the writers’ group might be a good
idea, but I didn’t want to make the commitment to go across town for it. Plus it was
in the morning. I thought I could be more efficient with my time if I stayed in the
office on my own schedule”.
Safety Needs
Writers’ group members also need to feel safe in their groups. Feelings of safety, or
unsafety, can be emotional, physical, or academic.
Academic writing is a high-stakes activity, and writers can often feel vulnerable and
in need of emotional safety. There were data suggesting that emotional safety was
the very thing that kept some writers in their groups; on the other hand, there were
also instances showing that writers left groups because they had felt “bullied” by
other members who criticised their research, or their writing.

209
Physical safety did not come up as often as emotional safety, but there were groups
working in cities where potential physical danger was a reality, and thus they needed
to consider it. A different kind of physical safety was presented by the covid-19
pandemic: when the lockdown measures lifted, and groups started meeting in person
again, some writers left their groups because they did not like that other members
did not take the safety measures (masks and distancing, for example) as seriously as
other members would have liked.
It has fortunately not happened very often, but there two cases where writers were
afraid that fellow group members were plagiarising their work: “I talked about this
in my writers’ group, and then I find [someone else from the group] presenting [my
idea] to [our supervisor]”. Sadly, academic safety needs to be considered as well.
Purpose and Procedural Needs
Members need to be in writers’ groups that do what they need writers’ groups to do.
While there is a wide range of activities that can go on in writers’ groups (please see
Haas, 2014 and Déri et al., 2022 for overviews), writers’ group purposes and
activities can be broken down into to writing (writing in the company of other
writers), reading (reading each others’ work, for example) and talking (giving
feedback, goal-setting, discussions on writing processes, social chat, etc). For a
writers’ group to flourish, these needs should align.
If, for example, the main purpose of a group is to get a lot of writing done (increase
written output), their procedures/activities would most likely largely consist of actual
writing time. If the purpose of the group, on the other hand, is to improve the quality
of the written work of members, the procedures/activities would probably fall more
into reading each others’ texts and giving feedback on it. Writers’ groups can quickly
fall apart if there is a mis-alignment of these purposes and procedures. If, for
example, some group members want to give and receive feedback on texts, and other
members need to use the time to get their writing done, the writers’ group will
probably not last very long (unless the needs are stated explicitly and two groups are
formed instead of one).
Even if the purpose are generally agreed upon, if there is a mis-alignment of how
this is done, members might leave. One member of the focus group explained that

210
while she really loved the writing group, their decision to write in 45-minute time-
slots simply did not work for her, as she needed at least 60 mintues of focused writing
time with each writing session.
The Need for Mutual Support
The last need that was uncovered in the analysis is the need for all writers in the
group to feel (and be) supported. In order for writers’ groups to function well and be
sustainable, everyone needs to be getting the support they need, and the kind of
support they need. Support needs include emotional support, support with text
quality, process support, support in staying focused and being productive, support
with accountability and goal-setting, etc. In order for writers’ groups to be
sustainable, they need function in a balanced way in which everyone is receiving as
well as giving support.
Some writers chose to leave their groups because they felt there were other members
who often asked for help, but were not available to offer support in return. An
example is group members asking for feedback on their texts several times, but
always being too busy to give feedback on others’ texts. Another example is a group
member who dominated writers’ group conversation time with tales of their own
writing woes, but would not be available to lend support to other group members
when they needed it.
Updated Pick-n-Mix model for sustainable writers’ groups
With the uncovering of the different categories of needs, it became clear that simply
knowing that writers’ groups can vary, and how they can vary is not enough for
running a writers’ group that will last. Below is presented an updated version of a
previously-used procedure for starting writers’ groups. The new Pick-n-Mix model
incorporates the old one, but adds to it, taking into consideration that in order for
writers’ groups to be sustainable, members’ various needs must be met. The first
three steps are the same as the old model; steps 4 and 5 are adjusted to accommodate
what we now know about writers’ needs in groups.

211
This procedure has been used on the Writer Development courses, where 10-15 PhD
students have been on retreat together, and thus have a pool of prospective co-group
members. Adaptations could be made for starting groups in different situations.
1. Understand that there’s no one best way to do a writers’ group
The first step of the old model is transferred to the new, as it is still relevant:
knowing that there is no one way to do a writers’ group can reassure those
just starting out that they are not going to mess things up.
2. Know what’s available (get to know the pick & mix)
The original Pick & Mix (Haas, 2014) offers an overview of the myriad ways
writers’ groups can vary (leadership, membership, logistics, activities, etc).
Having this bigger picture can help new members start to think of what
constellation of qualities might be suitable for themselves.
3. Try out a few different writers’ group activities
Giving some of the different activities a try (goal-setting, writing together,
giving feedback, etc) will help ensure that members get to know what it is
that they prefer, rather than relying on knee-jerk reactions when they see the
possibilities in print.
4. Think carefully about what you need/prefer
After getting an overview of what is available, and trying out a few different
things, members can then start thinking carefully about what it is that they
need from a writers’ group. All needs, logistical, safety, purpose and
procedural, and support needs should all be carefully considered. How much
and what kind of support is needed should also be explicitly addressed.
5. Make needs and preferences known
Once members have at least an initial understanding of what they themselves
need, in order for writers’ groups to be sustainable, the needs should be
communicated to other potential group members. To facilitate this, it is good
to keep in mind that expressing needs to a group might not always be very
easy, especially if individual members’ needs are perceived to go against
others’ needs (for example, even if one member is aware that they want to

212
give and receive feedback as part of writers’ group activities, they might be
hesitant to express this because they think it goes against other group
members’ wishes. A safe space for honesty needs to be established in order
of this part to be effective.
6. Group up according to preferences, or negotiate (or both)
Once all prospective group members’ needs are known and discussed, it is a
good idea, if there are enough people, to form groups according to compatible
preferences. While there will never be large groups of people who are exactly
compatible on all the different possibilities, starting with logistical
needs/preferences, moving on to purpose/procedural needs and negotiating
from there seems to work.
7. Make the purposes and procedures explicit
Once the preferences and needs are known, and some compatible grouping
and/or negotiation has been done, it is a good idea to make the purposes and
procedures of the group explicit. Write them down. It does not need to be
long or complicated, but formalising this, even minimally, not only clarifies
in everyone’s mind what exactly they are doing, but it can also serve as a
starting point for updating, re-forming, or re-negotiating the purposes and
procedures, if and when a bit of a group refresh is necessary (step 9).
8. Establish a start-up commitment
It can happen that people start out thinking writers’ groups are a really good
idea, do all the work of getting one set up, and then having their lives get in
the way, so they never actually end up meeting. As part of forming a group,
establishing an initial commitment (like the 2 x 2hr commitment on the WD
course) can help get the momentum going, after which it is easier to keep
going.
9. Re-assess periodically, and re-form if necessary
If the group continues for a long time, and especially if new members enter
the group, while some members leave, so that the group has a different
composition than it did when it was set up, it is good to re-assess, and re-form
(repeat steps 1-7 with current group members). Even if membership has not
shifted, members’ needs might have shifted. Re-examining these, re-

213
negotiating, re-stating and re-establishing needs, purposes and procedures
will make sure that the group does not grow stagnant. This activity can also
breath new life into a group that has just been running on the old operating
procedures without anyone really thinking much about it.
This new model has been being adapted and adjusted for three years, and so far it
seems that it may be a useful way to guide writers into setting up groups that will
last as long as they need them. I am reluctant to make any solid claims at this point,
however, as not only have not enough data been collected, but also two of the three
years were covid years. Further research is needed.

214
REFERENCES
Aitchison, C., & Guerin, C. (2014). Writing groups for doctoral education and
beyond: Innovations in practice and theory. Routledge.
Badenhorst, C., Pickett, S., and Hoben, J. (2019). Writing wild: Writing partnerships
that fly. In N. Simmons & A. Singh (Eds.), Critical collaborative communities:
Academic writing partnerships, groups, and retreats (pp. 121–135). Brill Sense.
Cho, J. Y., & Lee, E. H. (2014). Reducing confusion about grounded theory and
qualitative content analysis: Similarities and differences. Qualitative
report, 19(32).
Déri, C. E., Tremblay-Wragg, É. & Mathiew-C, S. (2022). Academic Writing
Groups in Higher Education: History and State of Play. International Journal
of Higher Education, 11(1), 85-99.
Elbow, P. (1998). Writing without teachers. Oxford University Press.
Girgensohn, K. (2010) Keynote address at EATAW conference. Limerick, Ireland
Haas, S. (2014). Pick-n-Mix: A typology of writers' groups in use. In Writing groups
for doctoral education and beyond (pp. 30-48). Routledge.
Haas, S., De Soete, A., & Ulstein, G. (2020). Zooming through Covid: Fostering safe
communities of critical reflection via online writers’ group
interaction. DOUBLE HELIX (HAMDEN), 8.
Kaufhold, K., & Yencken, D. E. (2021). Writing Groups as Dialogic Spaces:
Negotiating Multiple Normative Perspectives . Journal of Academic
Writing, 11(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.18552/joaw.v11i1.748
Kornhaber, R., Cross, M., Betihavas, V., & Bridgman, H. (2016). The benefits and
challenges of academic writing retreats: An integrative review. Higher
Education Research & Development, 35, 1210–1227.
Murray, R., & Newton, M. (2009). Writing retreat as structured intervention: margin
or mainstream?. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(5), 541-553.
Murray, R. (2014). Writing in social spaces: A social processes approach to
academic writing. Routledge.