The Australian Association of Writing Programs

Research findings from the project

‘Australian Postgraduate Writers Network’

What do students want? What do supervisors need to know?

How can I use the website?

 

 

A bit of context

As many of you will know, before the Writing Network (APWN) site was built we circulated a questionnaire among all the supervisors, students and recent graduates of writing research programs we could find.

 

Respondents came from 13 Australian universities, and from across the range of masters and doctoral degrees (students); from people with varying levels of experience (supervisors); and from both students and supervisors working in a wide range of forms and practices. As well as the expected weighting of novelists and creative nonfiction writers, journalists/professional writers, essayists, poets, editors, biographers and producers of artist books are among the respondents.

 

While the response rate was pretty poor (n=45), those who did respond provided generous and thoughtful commentary, from which we drew to design the website and its various elements.

 

Below are results from the questionnaires, in two parts. Part A lists the requests and preferences expressed by respondents, along with our responses, comments and suggestions. Part B lists those elements of the supervisory relationship that students have found either helpful or unhelpful to their candidature. All these comments should be read with the sort of disclaimer found at the front of some novels: ‘any resemblance to any person living or dead is purely coincidental’. That is to say, please do not take umbrage at any of the criticisms – or, if you do, use it to reflect on your own supervisory practice (if you’re a supervisor) or your own expectations of supervisors (if you’re a student). Please accept all these comments in the spirit they were given by the respondents – in the desire to make it all work as well as possible for all parties.

 

 

Some conclusions

We are very grateful for the insights and suggestions provided by the respondents, and where possible have either built them into the website, or designed the website so that members can add their preferred elements to it. It has gone through several rounds of tests now, and should be considered live though, since this is a community site, it will always be both dynamic and organic, always changing to suit the needs and interests of its members.

 

The Problem of the Commons (also, and more dramatically, known as the Tragedy of the Commons) is a critical one for online communities. Boiled down to its basics, what it really means is that if something is owned by all, it is cared for by none. For those readers not familiar with economic theory or European history, the Commons was an area of grazing available to everyone in the local area. If all stock owners used it sensibly and took into account the needs and interests of others, there’d be plenty for all. But what happened was that each stock owner exploited it as far as possible to suit his (almost invariably his) own interests, rather than thinking of the longer term, wider interests. The result was that the land became overgrazed and under-nourished, and then was useful to none.

 

This works as an analogy for online communities, in that all members own it, but unless they use it with the interests of all in mind, it will become impoverished. This means we all need to feed and water it (adding resources); we all need to interact with other users (through blogs and online discussions); to visit it, and spend time hanging about, getting to know the topography of the ‘land’, and how to navigate it; and in all these ways, getting as much personal benefit out of it as possible. Making the Commons/online community work is, in fact, the opposite of the zero sum game: the more each member puts in, the more they will be able to take out.

 

This very superficial account is here to remind all readers that the APWN is your site. We have taken your preferences on board wherever they were workable and/or affordable, and asked the designers to build a space you can now occupy. But, just like the process of moving into a new flat, it will be empty and uncomfortable until the curtains are hung, the bookshelves erected and the kitchen unpacked. We can’t do that; each resident needs to do it for themselves.

 

The site has been designed using drupal, one of the most user-friendly packages for online communities. All participants can add material, build connections, maintain blogs, post working papers, talk to each other, construct forums and groups etc. When in doubt about how to use the site, please check the drupal website <http://drupal.org/support> and/or email Jen.Webb@canberra.edu.au (not that Jen knows much about it; but she has had some practice, and is in touch with the web designers). There is a help button on the site, and a list of options at the lower right (where you log in). You can’t break anything! Play with it; see where it takes you.

 

 

The research team for this project was headed up by Jen Webb (University of Canberra), and Donna Lee Brien (now CQU). Team members were Craig Bolland, Jude Smith and Axel Bruns (QUT), and Greg Battye and Jordan Williams (University of Canberra) with generous input from Robert Fitzgerald also of UC (who was not on the team, but nonetheless contributed much advice). Oxide Interactive built the website and continue to host and support it. The project was funded by the ALTC (formerly the Carrick Institute), and we are grateful for their support.

 

If you would like to respond to, or seek clarification for, anything in this report, please contact me direct: Jen.Webb@canberra.edu.au

 

If you would like to set up a group, workshop, program, discussion list or anything else related to writing and writing research on the website, and you can’t figure out how to do it, please contact me.

 

 

19 November 2008