Annual Report: Developing Research Capacity at UWS, Structured Writing Retreat 2014

Professor Rowena Murray
Dr Larissa Kempenaar
DEVELOPING RESEARCH CAPACITY AT UWS
ANNUAL REPORT ON STRUCTURED WRITERS’
RETREATS
JANUARY-DECEMBER 2014

of 23
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2014 Structure Writing Retreats continued to provide participants with a Community of Practice
where academic staff and doctoral students share support, experiences, practices and resources.
Eight Structured Writing Retreats took place in 2014 with a total attendance of 142, an increase of
150% compared to 2013.
Furthermore, this year saw an increase in participants who attended writing retreat to progress
writing for their doctoral theses. This model appears to be particularly useful for staff and students
who are undertaking a PhD. Those undertaking PhDs have reported increased skill levels in terms of
writing and managing a PhD, while others have been able to return to PhDs after periods of ill
health. Although a PhD is a solitary activity, the integration of PhD students into a Community of
Practice of varying disciplines, grades and universities means that they are more likely to feel
supported and complete their theses in a timely manner.
2014 also saw an increase in the number of participants who attended more than one Structured
Writing Retreat from 27% in 2013 to 44% in 2014. Participants reported on the benefits of ‘repeat-
retreat’ in terms of productivity and efficiency of writing. The repeat-retreat model works for many
people and appears to be particularly beneficial to those attempting to progress and complete their
theses. The cumulative effect of attending multiple retreats is also becoming more evident as
Structured Writing Retreats are gradually becoming an accepted means of increasing research
output.
The equivalent of 8 science based theses was produced by those writing towards PhDs during the
SWR, not including progress between retreats. A total of 16 published journal articles, 10 conference
presentations (accepted), and 2 book chapters were produced by those attending SWR in 2014
alone. Structured Writing Retreats therefore should be included in University Research Strategies as
a means of increasing the University’s research output. In particular, this should be included in any
strategies related to the University’s performance in REF 2019.
Structured Writing Retreats continue to be attended mostly by female staff and students.
Considering the large research output for, the mostly female, participants, the University should
consider facilitating increased research output through Structured Writing Retreats as a means of
addressing the gender imbalance in career progression.
Besides research output, there has also been an increase of academic staff who have been writing
on Fellowship applications for the Higher Education Academy (HEA). With the current priority for
academic teaching staff to become members of the HEA or to upgrade their membership to Senior
Fellow, Structure Writing Retreats should therefore also be considered within strategies to support
staff’s professional development in teaching and learning.
In conclusion, Structured Writing Retreats are highly productive and facilitate the development of a
“culture where our people are supported to be highly motivated, creative and collaborative” (UWS
Corporate Strategy 2014-2020).

of 23
CONTENTS
Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................1
introduction.........................................................................................................................................3
attendance ..........................................................................................................................................4
Outputs................................................................................................................................................6
Outcomes ............................................................................................................................................8
Follow up data...................................................................................................................................11
Conclusion and recommendations....................................................................................................13
References.........................................................................................................................................15
appendices ........................................................................................................................................16
Appendix I List of internal participants.........................................................................................17
Appendix II List of external Participants .......................................................................................18
Appendix III Journal publications by retreat participants .................................................................19
Appendix IV Conference Presentations by Retreat Participants.......................................................21
appendix V Book chapters by retreat participants............................................................................22

of 23
INTRODUCTION
In the recently released corporate strategy the University’s new aims are to:
⁄ Promote vibrant research communities, underpinning the student learning
experience and providing a stimulating environment in which staff and students can
work and develop
⁄ Support staff to share their research outputs in order to maximise impact and
contribute to the international development of knowledge.
(Dreaming, Believing, Achieving, Corporate Strategy 2014-2020)
One method of effectively developing and nourishing vibrant research communities, activity and
increasing research outputs is by means of Structured Writing Retreats (SWR). SWR are attended by
staff and students from a range of Schools, Departments and Universities. This provides a unique
opportunity and environment for developing research communities. SWR provide time away from
other academic duties and allow staff and post graduate students to focus on progression in a range
of academic writing projects and the production of a range of written outputs, typically PhD
chapters; books; conference abstracts; journal articles and research proposals.
SWR are two and a half day, residential retreats which take place in a secluded location near
Glasgow. Participants bring information and sources they need on memory sticks or loaded onto
laptops. Participants write at computer desks, arranged in a boardroom format. Meals and snacks
are provided. The structure and concepts behind the writing retreats have been published previously
by Murray and Newton (2009). The retreats all include three evidence based elements:
1. The ‘typing pool’ which means that all participants write individually but are situated in the same
room for the duration of the retreat (Grant & Knowles 2000).
2. The use of a series of strict writing and discussion slots. The structured nature of the retreat is
based on a systematic review by McGrail et al (2006) who concluded that structured interventions
were found most effective in developing academic writing. Within the structured writing sessions
‘free-writing’, i.e. personal writing for short periods, is used at the start of each session which Elbow
(1973) found to stimulate the development of ideas and the improvement of fluency.
3. The use of peer discussion to review progress during the retreat (Murray 2005). This was possible
as all participants were writing in the same room. This sharing of experiences in relation to writing,
in turn, facilitates the development of a community of practice for academic writing at UWS
following on from the retreats.
Retreats cost £175 per internal participant and £225 per external participant. The cost of running the
retreat (accommodation and catering) is £175 for each individual, which means that the University
makes £50 profit per external participant. The profit of SWR goes to the School of Education to fund
future places for internal participants.

of 23
This evaluation reports on research outputs from eight SWR at the University of the West of
Scotland (UWS) in 2014 and identifies outcomes and benefits for participants. This report builds on
the previous report and supports the need for regular attendance at retreats for those who aspire to
develop and/or increase their research activity, those aiming to increase productivity in research and
writing and those who want to generate new research collaborations in accordance with the
University’s Research and Knowledge Exchange Strategy 2011-2015.
ATTENDANCE
Eight SWR took place in 2014. Five were held before the summer and 3 after the summer. On
average 18 participants attended each retreat, ranging from a minimum of 14 to a maximum of 21
participants. This is a 150% increase compared to 2013, when 12 participants attended each retreat.
A total of 78 participants attended retreats, averaging 1.8 attendances per year. This means that
there were 142 attendances over the 8 retreats.
Fifty of the participants (64%) were employees of the University of the West of Scotland. Participants
came from across the Schools in the university (see Figure 1). The majority, as in 2013, came from
the School of Education (n=12, 24%) and School of Health, Nursing and Midwifery (n=16, 32%),
although the actual number of participants from the School of Education was reduced from 17 in
2013 to 12 in 2014. In addition, there was a considerable increase in participants from the Schools of
Business and Enterprise and Media, Culture and Society, demonstrating a more varied intake of
participants from across the University than in 2013.
Figure 1. Breakdown of participants from UWS

of 23
Twenty-eight of the participants attended only 1 retreat (56%), while 11 attended 2 retreats (22%),
and 11 participants (22%) attended more than 3 retreats. This is a change in pattern from 2013 when
73% of participants attended 1 retreat, 14% attended 2 retreats (n=5) and only 13% attended more
than 2 retreats. Interestingly, 27 of the participants who attended in 2013 returned to attend
retreats in 2014(46%).
When comparing the attendances of 2013 and 2014 the average attendance at retreats has gone
down per participants. However when breaking this down into those who stopped attending after
2013 (n=40, 59.7%) and those who returned to attend in 2014, it became clear that those who
return to come to SWR attended on average1.7 more retreats than in the previous year.
Cohort 2014 2013
Year 2014 2014 2013
N=50 % N=67 % N=67 %
0 0 0 40 59.7 0 -
1 37 74.0 10 14.9 47 70.1
2 10 20.0 6 9.0 10 14.9
3 1 2.0 3 4.5 6 9.0
4 2 4.0 2 3.0 2 3.0
5 0 - 3 4.5 0 -
6 0 - 1 1.5 1 1.5
7 0 - - 0 -
8 0 - 2 3.0 0 -
9 - - - - 1 1.5
Mean 1.36 (SD 0.72) Mean 1.13 (SD 1.93)
Mean 2.811
(SD
2.13)
Mean 1.61 (SD 1.32)
1
For those who continued to attend in 2014
Table 1. Number of Structured Writing Retreats attended in 2013 and 2014
Twenty-eight participants (36%) attended the retreats from other institutions (see Figure 2). This is a
reduction from 2013 when 45% of participants came from other institutions. The 28 external
participants on average attended 1.6 sessions in 2014, resulting in a total of 45 attendances. This
resulted in a profit for the School of Education of £2,250.
The large majority of these participants came from other Scottish Universities (n=18, 64%), while the
remainder of participants came from English Universities, the NHS and the Higher Education
Academy. One participant was not affiliated with an institution. Twenty of the external participants
attended 1 retreat (71%), 4 participants (14%) attended 2 retreats, while the remaining 4 external
participants (14%) attended 3 or more retreats. Eleven of the participants (38%) who had attended
in 2013 returned to attend in 2014.
Out of 78 participants 15(19%) were male, while 63 (81%) participants were female. This is a
considerably higher proportion of females, than is present in the UWS staff population. According to
the Athena Swan submission for Bronze awards for the University of the West of Scotland in 2013,
58.4% of the staff were female and 41.6% male.

of 23
Figure 2. Breakdown of external participants.
OUTPUTS
During the 8 retreats, a total of 1,110,786 were written by participants (see table 1). This included
800,463 newly produced words and 310,143 previously produced, edited words. Participants at
retreats worked across a range of projects. While many worked on a single project like their PhD
many also progressed writing on journal articles, book chapters and a number of other writing
projects such as blogs, reflections, news paper articles, grant and ethics applications, and
assignments. However, the large majority of people had progressed writing on their PhD. This was
reflected in the large number of new words produced (as opposed to edited work) by participants on
their PhDs (total 312,252). If that was converted into completed theses word counts, this equates to
4 social science theses or 8 science based theses. This accounted for 39% of the total new word
count produced. Progression of journal articles was progressed by 36 people with a newly produced
word count of 148,978, 18.6% of the total new word count produced. As can be seen from the follow
up data (see Section Follow Up 2013-214), this is reflected in the number of publications resulting
from those who have attended writing retreats.
When compared to available data from 2013, it becomes clear that the number of participants
writing to progress a PhD was nearly doubled in 2014, which was paralleled in the number of journal
articles which was written on a retreat. This means that not only was there an increase in
participants who were working on a PhD thesis, these participants also managed to work towards
publication of their research in journals in the progress of completing their thesis.
It should also be noted that while the word counts of the facilitator of the SWR (RM) was included in
the previous report these have been omitted from the current report as it was felt that this skewed
the representation word count.

of 23
Other outputs included: grant applications (n=3), book chapters (n=2), proposals for book chapters
(2), conference presentations or abstract (n=20), research proposal (n=1), conference key note
lecture, online articles or blogs (3), ethics applications (n=2), job applications (n=2), PhD studentship
application (n=1), and Higher Education Academy Fellowship applications (n=4).
Writing project Word counts Participants
PhD Word counts
N working on
projects
New words written towards chapters 269,985 67
Editing of previously written work 221,690 25
Tables/figures/references 1,383 6
Report on PhD 12,470 3
Research proposal for PhD 15,200 3
Ethics application for PhD study 12,700 4
Other preparatory work for PhD 514 5
Journal article
New words written 124,058 36
Editing of previously written (but not yet submitted) work 62,393 20
Revision of a previously submitted journal article 18,300 4
Other preparatory work for journal article 5,500 2
Conference material
Abstract 1,600 1
Conference paper 1,942 4
Poster 17,000 4
Book chapter
New words written 1,000 1
Editing of previously written work 36,588 9
Other preparatory work for chapter (e.g. reading papers) 0
Research proposals (other than PhD) 1,080 1
Grant applications 600 1
Post graduate assignments (e.g. ProfDoc, MSc) 1,500 2
Ethics applications (other than PhD) 9,300 3
Other (please specify)…Blogs, book proposal, newspaper
article, assignments, reflections 268,803 27
Total words worked on 1,110,786
New Words 800,643
Editted words 310,143
Table 2. Word counts produced at Structured Writing Retreats 2014

of 23
OUTCOMES
The main theme that participants discussed in the feedback is that of the sharing of resources,
experiences and practices. This not only took place in relation to writing, but also in terms of
academic practice and research. In addition, many talked about peer support and the safety of the
group to share weaknesses as well as achievements. Many talked about feeling less lonely in the
pursuit of their PhD. This was described by some as the Community of Writers. This is reflected in
previous work on Communities of Practice (Murray, 2012).
It does develop your thinking, because you’re hearing about other people’s projects and
other ways of thinking. Hearing about other people’s successes is motivating.
People from different disciplines – you learn a lot – normally you’re buried in your own
discipline, but having to listen to ‘how does research work in your area’ – it’s good, and
getting new tips and research resources.
I find the solitude of doing a PhD is one of the hardest things; the solitude of the unknown,
even though I’m used to working on my own. Coming here and finding likeminded
‘journeymen’ is one of the most reassuring things I’ve had for a long, long time, and I hope I
can keep this in my mind for a long time.
The company is always good. I keep talking about this community of writers, but that is what
it is. You do feel part of something bigger.
The second theme described by participants is the importance of the retreat structure. This was in
relation to the importance of the enforcing of the structure by Professor Murray. The structure was
discussed in terms of working through barriers as participants would carry on within a provided time
slot despite struggling to write. Many described how, in other environment such as at home or at
work, they would have side stepped the situation by using task-avoidance.
I came to this retreat feeling not great, but I knew coming here I would deal with it and work
my way through it. It forces you to keep going. You play it to the end.
Strongly related to the structure is the enforced disengagement from daily home and work life due
to very limited access to the internet and telephone, which means that there are no disruptions
which allow a sole focus on writing.
It lets you leave life outside and focus on the writing. Life is complicated, but you can come
here and make progress. It’s the ‘ahhh’ moment – relief. You’re here and you’ve got that
time.
This focus on writing and facilitated disengagement is reflected in the concepts of task primacy and
disengagement has been described in previous research relating to SWR (MacLeod et al 2012,

of 23
Murray 2013). The impact of this was described by another participant when she reported the sense
of relief and reduction of stress that took place at retreat.
It’s helped me not stress. I would have been stressing at home and getting worked up about
not having done anything, but there’s no space for worry here. I always stress that I can’t
write it in two days, but here I did it.
This task primacy of writing was also reported in relation to the fact that task primacy was shared
across participants from different disciplines, levels and Universities.
Some also discussed the transferable nature and benefits of this structure and the self-discipline
required. This was in relation to academic writing, but also in relation to general academic work
practices and the importance in terms of maintaining general wellbeing.
The allocation of breaks throughout the day – that’s not what we do at work. After the July
retreats, we started to have an hour for lunch and try to have breaks. Otherwise, we get
burnt out.
The structure therefore is an important factor in increasing and maintaining productivity as was
illustrated by this participant.
The structure is perfect. The extent to which you managed to push us […] It helped me –
when you come up against something difficult […] you just get on with it. In terms of
productivity it could not be more productive. And everyone was good to work with. The
discipline is so essential.
The enhanced productivity was associated for many with an increase in self-belief. This self-belief
related to particular activity, such as participants’ ability to write, but also to more general aspects
like the completion of a PhD thesis.
I always find writing a scary process, which contributes to putting it off, and this session has
made writing more approachable – breaks through walls, things you put off or avoid. Things
you think you can’t do – you realise you can.
While many participants found new ways of working at the retreat, many also reported on the
benefit of ‘repeat-retreat’. This highlighted the cumulative effect of the retreat both in familiarity
with the structure and increased effectiveness of using the time available.
I’ve been to 6 retreats in 13 months. Because the format stays the same, you can see the
changes in how you write and growing confidence. I can now let the experience of starting –
not good – go, and move on. I don’t need to keep having the diatribe about my thesis.
There’s nothing more to say about that.
A different characteristic of the structured writing retreat is the time dedicated to physical activity as
part of the structure. Each day prior to lunch participants are encouraged to take a walk in the
country side at their own level and pace. In addition, participants have access to a gym and

of 23
swimming pool at a nearby resort. Some participants reported informally on the importance of this
physical activity and their personal achievements as they had neglected their physical wellbeing in
their efforts to progress their theses.
One of the goals of the SWR was to include more PhD students from UWS as suggested by Depute
Principal Professor Paul Martin. Fifty percent of all attendees from UWS 2014 were undertaking a
PhD when they attended a structured writing retreat. Many commented on the importance of
attending the writing retreat and how this affected their ability to continue their doctoral thesis. This
included meeting other PhD students, but also developing the skills to manage the thesis as well as
the skills and discipline to write.
It’s here that I’ve learned the craft of my PhD – I’ve learned most of the things that will help
me manage my PhD.
I was really nervous to begin and felt unable to write a thing, which is a feeling I'm used to.
However, after trying what you suggested by freewriting, I was able to get a lot of negativity
out of my head and clear the way to being able to focus on writing my thesis. So for this I'd
like to thank you…. It is certainly one of the most valuable things I have done since beginning
my PhD.
This again was related to the support provided by other participants, in combination with the
enforced structure which aided task primacy of writing.
I was pretty apprehensive about it before going as I've been struggling a lot with writing in
recent months because I lost a lot of confidence in my ability ... The experience I had this
weekend has helped me out a great deal in terms of feeling like I am more able to complete
my thesis, in part because I found it such a supportive environment and also because of the
structure of the retreat I was able to focus on getting through each session instead of feeling
overwhelmed by the amount I still need to achieve before completion.
Not only have SWR been helpful in progressing students and staff through their PhDs, it has helped
others to return to their PhD following a period of ill health (related to the PhD).
This is a real community of writers. Coming back to work from being ill – this is the first time
I’ve been able to stay awake all day, and I have produced writing. I have been struggling back
to health, and this has been part of my return to health. All very supportive. It’s therapeutic.
In summary, Stuctured Writing Retreats were perceived as creating and sustaining communities of
writers from across disciplines and universities, where participants received support and shared
experiences, practices and resources. Participants favourably report on the fixed time slots and
imposed structure provided at the retreat, which enforced the task primacy of writing and increased
their productivity. Many PhD students reported on the importance of writing retreats in terms of
their skill and discipline development. As many participants have attended multiple retreats, the
benefits of attending writing retreats appear to become cumulative in productivity and efficiency of
writing.

of 23
FOLLOW UP DATA
A follow up survey was carried out in January 2015 regarding writing activities in 2014 with all 117
participants who had taken part since Professor Murray introduced SWR in 2013. In 2013, 67
individuals attended writing retreats (referred to as Cohort 2013), of whom 27 participants
continued to attend writing retreats in 2014. Another 50 new participants attended the writing
retreats in 2014 (Cohort 2014).
Thirty-one participants who first attended in 2013 replied to the survey, a response rate of 46%. Of
the 2014 cohort 30 participants responded; a response rate of 60%.
Of the 61 respondents 33 were undertaking a doctoral degree. Unfortunately only 9 reported on the
progress of their thesis. This means that results should be interpreted with caution as it is unlikely
that those doctoral students who did not respond (n=24) did not make any progress. Progress of the
thesis was recorded in terms of word counts and these can be seen in table 3 for the 9 students who
responded. The total number of the 9 respondents was 154,070. It should be noted that the word
count reported by those who attended in both 2013 and 2014 was considerably higher than those in
2014 even when taking into account the smaller number of respondents.
Total 2014 2013-14
Number of Doctoral students N=33 N=17 N=16
Yes 9 3 6
Word Count 154,070 17,070 137,000
No 2 0 2
Nil response 24 14 9
Table 3. Progress by doctoral students
A total of 22 respondents (36.1%) had progressed journal articles since attending the retreat(s) in
2014 (see table 4). Between these 22 respondents, 15 journal articles had been accepted for
publication, while 10 were awaiting review and 3 were preparing submission (see table 5). When
comparing these responses for the 2013 Cohort and the 2014 Cohort, it appears clear that those
who attended for the first time in 2013 had a greater percentage of journal publications accepted.
Total 2014 2013-14
Participants N=61 % N=30 % N=31 %
Yes 22 36.1 7 23.3 15 48.4
No 26 42.6 23 76.7 13 41.9
Blank 3 4.9 0 - 3 9.7

of 23
Table 4. Participant who submitted journal articles.
Total 2014 2013-14
Participants N=22 N=7 N=15
Accepted for publication 15 2 13
Awaiting review 10 3 7
Preparing resubmission 3 2 2
Rejected 0 0 0
No information provided 2 0 2
Table 5. Breakdown of stages of journal publications
A further analysis was carried out to compare those with and without reported journal publications
with the number of writing retreats attended in 2014. While differences are small, those with journal
publications had attended more retreats (2.0), while those who did not submit had fewer
attendances (1.6).
Participants continued to attend and set up writing groups in the periods between writing groups. A
total of 19 participants (31.1%) reported that they took part in writing groups (n=14, 2013 Cohort,
n=15, 2014 Cohort). The frequency of these writing groups varied between regular weekly meet ups,
to ad hoc writing groups to meet deadlines. While most writing groups were made up of people
from various disciplines across UWS, one group reported to consist of PhD students only. Many
groups consisted of participants from various disciplines and/or universities who had met at the SWR
and continued working relationships following the writing retreats. Writing groups met in varying
locations, such as classrooms, cafes, and the library either on campus or off campus. Some
participants have also reported the use of ‘virtual writing groups’, where they emulated the model
of fixed time slots, peer discussions and goal setting via email or live chat with a small number of
fellow retreat participants. This appeared to be particularly useful for Doctoral students who often
worked from home or those who were unable to travel.

of 23
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Structured Writing Retreats have seen an increase in attendances in 2014. Furthermore, 2014 saw
an increase in the number of participants who attended more than one SWR from 27% in 2013 to
44% in 2014. Those who returned to attend in 2013 and returned to attend in 2014 increased their
frequency of attendance in 2014. Participants also reported on the benefits of ‘repeat-retreat’. This
appears to indicate that the repeat-retreat model works for many people in particular for those
working towards completion of their theses.
On the other hand, there is a need to explore why so many people attend only once. It could be that
they were able to transfer the structure or skills from the retreat, did not have the resources to
attend follow up retreats or the model may not have worked for them. However, this is speculative
as there currently is no data available regarding these participants.
Structure Writing Retreats have been shown to facilitate incredible productivity in its participants in
terms of the output produced. This year saw a significant increase in participants who attended
writing retreat to progress on Doctoral theses. The equivalent of 8 science based theses was
produced by those writing towards PhDs during the SWR, not including progress between retreats. A
total of 16 published journal articles, 10 conference presentations (accepted), and 2 book chapters
were produced by those attending SWR in 2014 alone. Structured Writing Retreats therefore need
to be included in University Research Strategies as a means of increasing the University’s research
output. In particular, this should be included in any strategies working towards REF 2019.
SWR continue to be attended mostly by female staff and students. Considering the very large
research output for, the mostly female, participants, the University should consider Structured
Writing Retreats as a means of addressing the gender imbalance in career progression at the
University of the West of Scotland by improving female academics’ career prospects.
Besides research output, there has also been an increase of academic staff who have been writing
on Fellowship applications for the Higher Education Academy (HEA). With the current priority for
academic teaching staff to become members of the HEA or to upgrade their membership to Senior
Fellow, Structure Writing Retreats also provide a means to increase productivity in this area. This is
something thhat
While a profit of £2,250 was made this year, the attendance fee for externals for 2015 has been
increased to £275. The profit for each external participant increases from £50 to £100 per person.
This means that the SWR can continue to offer places to staff and doctoral students from UWS,
while continuing to make a profit from external participants.
Structure Writing Retreats continue to provide participants with a community of practice of writers
who mutually share experiences and practices, and support each other. This approach is particularly
useful for staff and students who are undertaking a PhD. Those undertaking PhDs have reported
increased skill levels in terms of writing and managing a PhD, while others have been able to return

of 23
to PhDs after periods of ill health. Although a PhD is a solitary activity, the integration of PhD
students into a Community of Practice of varying disciplines, grades and universities means that they
are more likely to feel supported and complete their theses in a timely manner. The cumulative
effect of attending multiple retreats is also becoming more pronounced as SWR are gradually
becoming an accepted means of increasing research output.
In conclusion, Structured Writing Retreats are highly productive and facilitate the development of a
“culture where our people are supported to be highly motivated, creative and collaborative” (UWS
Corporate Strategy 2014-2020).

of 23
REFERENCES
Elbow, P. (1973) Writing without Teachers. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Grant, B., & Knowles, S. (2000). Flights of imagination: Academic women be(com)ing
writers. International Journal for Academic Development, 5(1), 6-19.
MacLeod, I., Steckley, L., & Murray, R. (2012). Time is not enough: Promoting strategic engagement
with writing for publication. Studies in Higher Education, 37(6): 641-654.
McGrail, M. R., Rickard, C. M., & Jones, R. (2006). Publish or perish: a systematic review of
interventions to increase academic publication rates. Higher Education Research and
Development, 25(1), 19-35.
Moore, S., Murphy, M., & Murray, R. (2010). Increasing academic output and supporting equality of
career opportunity in universities: can writers’ retreats play a role? Journal of Faculty
Development, 24(3): 21-30.
Murray, R., & Newton, M. (2009). Writing retreat as structured intervention: margin or
mainstream? Higher Education Research and Development, 28(5): 527-39.
Murray, R. (2012). Developing a community of research practice. British Educational Research
Journal, 38(5), 783-800.
Murray, R. (2013). It’s not a hobby: reconceptualizing the place of writing in academic work. Higher
Education, 66(1): 79-91.
University of the West of Scotland (2014) Dreaming, Believing, Achieving, Corporate Strategy 2014-
2020.
University of the West of Scotland (2011) Research and Knowledge Exchange Strategy 2011-2015

of 23
APPENDIX I LIST OF INTERNAL PARTICIPANTS
Participants from the University of the West of Scotland by School n=50, 64.9%
Business Isaac Amaoko Christian Harrison
Marie Fletcher Isobel McDonald
Stephen Gibb Maria Mina
Anne
Claire Gillon Dina Nziku
Jacquie Greener Joan Scott
CCI Pamela Barnes Jennifer Jones
Alison Bell Sarah Scott
Education Gordon Asher Diarmuid McAuliffe
Annette Coburn Elaine McCulloch
Donald Gillies Alison McEntee
Susan Henderson Johanne Miller
Larissa Kempenaar Rowena Murray
Claire Mackie Dickson Telfer
Nursing Celia Cameron Aisling McBride
Ruth Deery Louise McCallum
Carol Dickie Amanda McGrandles
Di Douglas Heather McVicars
Lorraine Duers Fiona Milne
Fiona Everett Jean Rankin
Gillian Gamble Wendy Wright
Teresa Macintosh
Science Fiona Averill Hayley McEwan
Angela Beggan Jim Scullion
Uche Chukwura Michelle Smith
Laura Graham Stuart Tennant
Social Science Kieran Hamilton

of 23
APPENDIX II LIST OF EXTERNAL PARTICIPANTS
Participants from other institutions n=27, 35.1%
University First Name Surname
Birmingham University Petia Petrova
Cumbria University Pete Boyd
Edinburgh College of Art Magnus Lawrie
Edinburgh University Leila Sinclair-Bright
Formerly Glasgow Caledonian University Morag Thow
Glasgow Caledonian University Sharon Pettigrew
Glasgow University Anna Beck
Higher Education Academy Ruth Pilkington
Heriot Watt University Amos Haniff
Heriot Watt University Ihssan Jwijati
King’s College London Salha Aljohani
Lancaster University Helena Kettleborough
Liverpool Hope University Ria Cheyne
Napier University Marianne Baird
NHS Morag Findlay
NHS/Glasgow Caledonian University Kirstin James
Private Tracey McLennan
St Andrews University Jennie Baker
Stirling University Maureen Michael
Strathclyde University Mary Welsh
Strathclyde University Alia Weston
Strathclyde University Andrea Tonner
Strathclyde University Kathy Hamilton
Strathclyde University Matthew Alexander
Teesside University Sue Smith
University College London Ann Stewart
University of the Highlands and Islands Helen Coker

of 23
APPENDIX III JOURNAL PUBLICATIONS BY RETREAT PARTICIPANTS
2013 Cohort Impact
rating
1. Asher, G., & French, L. (2014). Crises Capitalism and Independence
Doctrines.Concept, 5(1), 10.
http://concept.lib.ed.ac.uk/index.php/Concept/article/download/249/243
2. Asher, G. & French, L. (2014) The Scottish Referendum, 2014: Eco-Social
Justice and a Critical ‘YES, BUT’, Heathwood Press,
http://www.heathwoodpress.com/the-scottish-referendum-2014-eco-
social-justice-and-a-critical-yes-but-gordon-asher-leigh-french/
3. Asher. G.with French, L. (2014) A Proposal: Voting ‘Yes, BUT’, ZNet,
https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/a-proposal-voting-yes-but/
4. Miller, J., McAuliffe, L., Riaz, N., & Deuchar, R. (2015). Exploring youth's
perceptions of the hidden practice of youth work in increasing social
capital with young people considered NEET in Scotland. Journal of Youth
Studies, (ahead-of-print), 1-17.
0.771
5. McEwan, H.E. & Tod, D. (2015). Learning Experiences Contributing To
Service-Delivery Competence In Applied Psychologists: Lessons For Sport
Psychologists. Journal Of Applied Sport Psychology. 27 (1), 79-93.
1.098
6. McCaig, M., McNay, L., Marland, G., Bradstreet, S., & Campbell, J. (2014).
Establishing a recovery college in a Scottish University. Mental Health and
Social Inclusion, 18(2), 92-97.
N/A
7. Waugh, A., McNay, L., Dewar, B., & McCaig, M. (2014). Supporting the
development of interpersonal skills in nursing, in an undergraduate
mental health curriculum: Reaching the parts other strategies do not
reach through action learning. Nurse education today, 34(9), 1232-1237.
1.456
8. McCaig, M., McNay, L., Howatson, V., McCormack, J., McIntosh, G., &
Mathers, B. (2014). Do mental health nurse lecturers ‘walk the talk’, as
well as ‘talk the talk’?. British Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 3(5), 223-
228.
N/A
9. Bamber, R. (in press) 'Cite Global, Act Local In Master’s Scholarship', In
Higher Education Quarterly, July 2015
N/A
10. Marcos, R., & Correia‐Gomes, C. (2014). The innate immune system of the
liver: May it explain the stronger viral clearance in female
sex?. Hepatology, 60(5), 1800-1801.
11.190
11. Porphyre, T., Boden, L. A., Correia-Gomes, C., Auty, H. K., Gunn, G. J., &
Woolhouse, M. E. (2014). How commercial and non-commercial swine
producers move pigs in Scotland: a detailed descriptive analysis. BMC
1.743

of 23
veterinary research, 10(1), 140.
12. Santos, M., Correia-Gomes, C., Santos, A., de Matos, A., Rocha, E., Lopes,
C., & Pereira, P. D. (2014). Nuclear pleomorphism: Role in grading and
prognosis of canine mammary carcinomas. The Veterinary Journal, 200(3),
426-433.
2.165
13. Correia-Gomes, C., Economou, T., Bailey, T., Brazdil, P., Alban, L., & Niza-
Ribeiro, J. (2014). Transmission parameters estimated for Salmonella
typhimurium in swine using susceptible-infectious-resistant models and a
Bayesian approach. BMC veterinary research, 10(1), 101.
1.743
2014
14. Chukwura, U. O., Udom, G. J., Cuthbert, S. J., & Hursthouse, A. S. (2015)
Evaluation of hydrochemical characteristics and flow directions of
groundwater quality in Udi Local Government Area Enugu State,
Nigeria. Environmental Earth Sciences, 73 (8), 4541-4555
1.572
15. Boyd, P. (2014). Learning conversations: teacher researchers evaluating
dialogic strategies in early years settings. International Journal of Early
Years Education,22(4), 441-456.
16. Scullion, J., Stansfield, M., & Baxter, G., (2015). UNITE: Enhancing
students’ self-efficacy through the use of a 3D virtual world. Journal of
Universal Computer Science. In revision.
0.401

of 23
APPENDIX IV CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS BY RETREAT PARTICIPANTS
2013 Cohort
Asher, G. (2014) Learning development for social justice? A proposal - critical academic literacies.
Conference Session ALDinHE 2014: http://www.aldinhe.ac.uk/resources/files/hudd14/abstracts/4-
2.pdf
Asher, G. (2015) Learning Development in the Neoliberal University: Tensions and challenges; barriers
and limitations; opportunities and possibilities. Conference Session ALDinHE 2015:
http://www.aldinhe.ac.uk/resources/files/solent15/abstracts/6-1.pdf
Bamber, R. (2014) Think global, act local in master’s scholarship . Higher Education Close Up
Research Conference: Making a Difference, Lancaster.
McNay, L. Marland, G. and McCaig, M. (2014) Empowering education: Establishing a wellness and
recovery college in a scottish university. [online] Scottish Recovery Network.
http://www.scottishrecovery.net/Latest-News/empowering-education-establishing-a-wellness-and-
recovery-college-in-a-scottish-university.html [Accessed 16-Mar-15]
McNay L and Dewar B (2014) The role of language in enhancing partcipation, Enhancing Practice
Conference: Toronto.
Riaz, N. (2014) Ethnicity, young people and ‘othering'; ‘it’s like we don’t exist’: Transitions from
school to nowhere. Sixteenth Conference of the Children’s Identity and Citizenship in Europe
Academic Network: London.
https://metranet.londonmet.ac.uk/fms/MRSite/Research/cice/pubs/2014/2014_394.pdf [Accessed
16-Mar-15]
2014 Cohort
Boyd, P. & Constable, H. (2014) The Teacher Researcher: becoming an expert teacher through
mastery of enquiry. European Council for Educational Research (ECER) annual conference, Porto,
September 2014
Tennant, S., Fernie. S. and Murray, M., (2014) The myth of best practice through the lens of
construction supply chain management. 30th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2014,
Portsmouth, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction Management.
Scullion, J., Stansfield, M. and Baxter, G., (2014). Gender Differences in Self-Efficacy Relating to
Collaborative Learning in a 3D Virtual World. In: E-iED 2014 Proceedings. Presented at the E-iED
2014, ImmersiveEducation.org, Vienna, pp. 1–14.
Scullion, J & Creechan, G. (2014). Nursing Students’ use of a 3D Virtual World to Enhance Self
Efficacy in Collaborative Tasks. In: Proceedings of the European Conference in the Applications of
Enabling Technologies. In press.

of 23
APPENDIX V BOOK CHAPTERS BY RETREAT PARTICIPANTS
2013 Cohort
Asher, G. (2015) Critical Thinking and Your Research, in Walsh, T, & Ryan, A. (2015) Writing Your
Thesis: A guide for postgraduate students, MACE Press.
Asher, G. (2015) Originality in Postgraduate Research, in Walsh, T, & Ryan, A. (2015) Writing Your
Thesis: A guide for postgraduate students, MACE Press.

Annual Report: Developing Research Capacity at UWS, Structured Writing Retreat 2014

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Annual Report: Developing Research Capacity at UWS, Structured Writing Retreat 2014

Similar to Annual Report: Developing Research Capacity at UWS, Structured Writing Retreat 2014 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Annual Report: Developing Research Capacity at UWS, Structured Writing Retreat 2014