BENEFITS OF FREEWRITING FOR ACADEMIC STAFF ENGAGED

IN A WRITING RETREAT

J. Castle
School of Education
University of the Witwatersrand
Johannesburg, South Africa
e-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT
Increasing pressures on academics, particularly early-career academics, to conduct research and
complete higher degrees has led many institutions to offer writing retreats that focus on the end
product of academic writing, typically a journal article based on a chapter of their thesis. These
‘product-oriented’ retreats give little attention to the creative processes involved in writing,
including becoming a generative and confident writer. This article focuses on freewriting as a
creative process in a ‘process-oriented’ writing retreat which enables the benefits of freewriting to
be shared among participants. Analysis of three freewrites completed by academics during a
retreat shows that focused freewriting can engage academics in re-imagining doctoral study.
These academics’ writing shows clearly the attributes and benefits of freewriting.
Keywords: freewriting; writing pedagogies; writing retreats; writing strategies; doctoral studies;
academic staff

INTRODUCTION
Problematising the pedagogies that can be applied in writing retreats is a potentially useful way
to help academic staff survive and thrive as writers in the current stressful university
environment. In this article I propose that freewriting is a strategy that not only helps academics
write freely and creatively; it also helps academics problematise their tacit and experiential
knowledge, assisting them in recognising their own narratives and in considering alternatives.
The ability to do this develops critical (self) awareness and critical reflection on different ways
of being and doing. The capacity for critical thinking is one of the hallmarks of academic
endeavour in all disciplines. In addition, I argue that the generative and enjoyable aspects of
freewriting (Elbow 2000; Murray 2009) can be increased by making it a central pedagogical
practice in a ‘process-oriented’ writing retreat.
Not only can freewriting help novice and experienced writers to reflect backwards and
forwards on experience and capture their thoughts in writing; it can also assist them to activate
or reframe their tacit knowledge in an easy and enjoyable way, thus reducing the anxiety that

South African Journal of Higher Education http://dx.doi.org/10.20853/31-2-1341

Volume 31 | Number 2 | 2017 | pages 124‒137 eISSN 1753-5913
124
Castle Benefits of freewriting for academic staff engaged in a writing retreat

many writers experience (Murray 2013; Murray and Moore 2006). Exploring a group of
doctoral students’ reflections in hindsight about writing a thesis also has the potential to
sensitize others, for example, other postgraduate students and supervisors, to some of their roles
and practices.
Sharing their experiences by reading their freewrites aloud to one another, and listening
to what others have to say, in the safe space of a process-oriented writing retreat, helps writers
consider alternative ways of thinking, writing and being. Considering different ways of writing
a thesis is a valuable process in itself. Freewriting, used as a central pedagogy in a writing
retreat, can help academic staff to thrive as research writers in the stressful context of university
life.
In this article I present three short, focused, reflections by academics about what they
would do differently if they were starting a doctoral thesis again. The reflections are in the form
of focused freewrites (Elbow 2000; Badenhorst 2007) completed by doctoral students who
participated in a five-day, non-residential writing retreat designed to assist them to progress in
their scholarly writing projects. The freewrites show that freewriting can elicit spontaneous, yet
powerful, writing of interest and benefit to the writer and others.

RESEARCH FOCUS
In this article I focus on the benefits of freewriting for academic staff by first describing how
free writing works, and then showing how it can be effective in a writing retreat that cultivates
community and collegiality among academic staff, as well as creativity and reflection in
writing. I begin by situating freewriting in doctoral writing, then positioning it as a central
pedagogic strategy in a process-oriented writing retreat. I then illustrate the benefits of
freewriting by analysing three short texts that academics wrote in response to the prompt: ‘If I
were starting my thesis again ...’. I conclude the article by affirming the benefits of freewriting
to academic writers engaged in doctoral studies. This article complements others in this special
issue that explore writing pedagogies and writing retreats.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
I begin this section with an account of the contextual pressures on academic staff who are also
doctoral students to produce and produce (Harrison 2011). I then proceed to a discussion of
writing as a method of enquiry, and freewriting as a pedagogical strategy and finally, I turn to
the subject of writing retreats.

125
Castle Benefits of freewriting for academic staff engaged in a writing retreat

Doctoral students under pressure

Burford (2014), writing about doctoral study in New Zealand, indicates that the ubiquitous
culture of audit, scrutiny and precarious working conditions in higher education institutions is
increasingly affecting students negatively. Citing the long hours, poor pay and poor prospects
of promotion of academics generally, and the culture of managerialism, audit and
‘metricization’ that prevails in universities of the North and the South, Burford describes
doctoral students as ‘increasingly sore, stressed and feeling anxious and guilty’ (2014, 69). He
urges supervisors and researchers to focus their attention on the ‘messy, ordinary and emotional
lives of students and the conditions under which they study, work and seek employment’ (2014,
69). He also points to the changing role that writing and be(com)ing a writer plays in the lives
of students (2014, 69). I suggest that the institutional and cultural changes facing doctoral
students in South Africa in 2016 are similar to, if not harsher than, those Burford (2014)
describes in the case of New Zealand.
A recent survey of doctoral supervisors in South Africa by Mouton, Boshoff and James
(2015) sketched the broad characteristics of doctoral students in South Africa. They found that
doctoral students are ‘mature’, at 41 years of age on average, and take about five years to
complete a PhD. Unlike many doctoral students in the North, or in Australasia, students in
South Africa can rarely access the funds to finance full-time study, so they register as part-time
students while engaged in full-time employment. Progress on their studies is frequently delayed
or interrupted by the competing demands of their families and employers (even when the
employer is the academic institution at which they are studying). At the same time, doctoral
students are under pressure to complete their degrees in minimum time so that their institutions
and supervisors can reap financial and reputational rewards. All of this means that part-time
study is something that South African students fit into evenings, weekends and occasional days
off (Mouton et al. 2015). These characteristics of doctoral students, and the contextual pressures
they face, resonate strongly with my own experience of undertaking a PhD as a member of the
academic staff of a research university.
One-on-one supervision (rather than group or committee supervision) is the norm for
students in the humanities and social sciences (Mouton et al. 2015). This mode of supervision
is demanding for students and supervisors alike, particularly with the increase in student
registrations that most academics in South African universities experience. Because most
doctoral students are working full-time, a great deal of supervision is carried out by email or
skype, requiring of both students and supervisors different resources and skills. Supervisors
complain that students are poorly prepared for doctoral study, and that they ‘cannot write

126
Castle Benefits of freewriting for academic staff engaged in a writing retreat

scientifically’, meaning that they do not know how to select relevant literature, and lack the
skills to analyse data properly (Mouton et al. 2015, 3). All in all, it appears that doctoral
students, like their supervisors, face overwhelming pressure to deliver results, in institutions
that are unable to provide adequate support or resources. The ever-increasing pressures on
academics motivated me to explore some of the ways in which writing strategies and
pedagogies, such as freewriting and writing retreats, can help academic staff to become more
creative, generative and confident writers.

Writing as a method of enquiry

As long ago as 2000, Richardson criticised the standard ‘limiting’, and ‘objectifying’ practices
of social sciences research in the USA. She slated the ‘mechanistic’ method of ‘writing up
research’ after collecting data (2000, 5). She called for writing, or the process of writing, to be
recognised as ‘evocative’ – a way of investigating ‘how we construct the world, ourselves and
others’ (2000, 5). She proposed that writing was a research practice, a method of discovery and
analysis, as well as a creative practice (Richardson 1998). She maintained that knowing the self
and knowing about the subject of enquiry were intertwined, and that having a partial, local, or
historically situated knowledge ‘is still knowing’ (Richardson 2000, 8). Richardson proposed
that by writing in different ways, researchers could discover new aspects of their topic and their
relationship to it. She saw writing as a creative and analytical process, valid as a method of
knowing (2000).
For Richardson, the researcher is the instrument in qualitative research, rather than the
interview, the survey or the questionnaire. The researcher’s knowledge is situated in her ‘voice’
(Richardson 1998, 363). Experience and memory are open to interpretation, governed by social
interests. We understand ourselves reflexively from particular positions at specific times. Thus
form and content are nearly inseparable. Writing process and writing product are
interconnected.
Like Richardson, Kamler (2001, 14) also rejects ‘mechanistic’ and ‘objectifying’ methods
of research and research writing. She affirms that research writing is a method of discovery – a
dynamic and reactive process. Writing relocates the writer in relation to her writing. Writing
prolifically, that is, with ease and confidence, requires letting go, being surprised, and even
writing ‘rubbish’ (Kamler 2001, 13). I agree with Richardson and Kamler about the nature of
research writing and writing prolifically. Later in this article, I propose that freewriting,
especially with other writers in a retreat, is a process that helps writers to write with ease and
confidence.

127
Castle Benefits of freewriting for academic staff engaged in a writing retreat

Building on the contributions that Richardson (1998; 2000) and Kamler (2001) make
about research writing, Badenhorst (2008) remarks that the process of writing a doctoral thesis
is neither straightforward nor linear. Scholars find themselves working simultaneously on
different sections, or chapters at different stages of completion. For example, in writing the
research findings, a student may be trying out different techniques for representing the data,
while revising the methodology chapter and adding material to the review of literature.
Badenhorst (2008) proposes freewriting as a key technique in thesis writing, as it is
simultaneously a way to work through problems and get words on the page.

Freewriting
The purpose of freewriting, as proposed by Richardson (1998; 2000) and Kamler (2001), is
knowledge creating rather than knowledge recording. The basic principle is to write
continuously and quickly, for an agreed period of time – for example, one or five or twenty
minutes – without stopping (Elbow 2000; Goldberg 1986). The writer does not refer to external
sources (books, journals, the Internet) or control her thinking. S/he does not stop to correct
grammar or spelling; does not draw lines through text or rub out words; and, in fact, does not
lift the pen from the page for the duration of the freewrite. Nor does s/he write for a particular
reader or audience. Engaging in any of these editing activities could mean that the writer’s
internal scholar or editor was casting a critical eye over the work (Badenhorst 2008; Goldberg
1986). The principle is that, in order to write freely, to let the writing flow, it is necessary to
suspend (editorial) judgement. The rapidity of freewriting means that the writer makes no
conscious investment in the freewrite. The writer writes to see what s/he knows, thinks or feels
about something. Relinquishing control in this way often releases surprising, original ideas and
thoughts.
Elbow (2000, 86‒87) describes two forms of freewriting. The first is a process of ‘blurting
out’ ‘first thoughts, musings and perplexities’ about a topic. The writer captures her own ideas
and thoughts in words. In blurting out, freewriting simply gets words on paper and breaks the
barriers of uncertainty and the struggle to begin writing (Murray and Moore 2006; Badenhorst
2007). It helps writers overcome ‘writer’s block’. The second way of understanding freewriting
is ‘focused freewriting’ exploring a particular topic or issue. As in blurting out, the non-stop
writing process also helps the writer to get down what she knows about a topic. But Elbow
(2000) also claims that focused freewriting improves thinking, and can lead to meta-discourse.
Freewriting encourages dialogue with ourselves. Focused free writing leads the writer to
identify what her dilemma is; why her ideas make sense or do not. We all have tacit and intuitive

128
Castle Benefits of freewriting for academic staff engaged in a writing retreat

knowledge, as Richardson (1998; 2000) proposed. Through free writing, as Elbow (2000)
points out, we can bring more of our tacit knowledge into words and into conscious awareness
and then work with it.
Murray (2009) suggests that freewriting may be particularly helpful for novice writers, as
it helps them generate ideas and possibilities, without evaluating them. ‘You start to write, even
if you are, in fact, unsure about where the writing is going’ (2009, 93). Material for focused
freewriting may include ‘an accumulation of your experience, education, experiments, reading,
worries, feelings, conversations and 1986 (2009, 96). She lists sixteen uses for freewriting,
including thinking about both sides of an issue; thinking through alternatives to one’s own view;
breaking through rigid or established ideas; ‘ventilating’ feelings and ideas; and expressing first
thoughts and impressions.
For Elbow (2000), Goldberg (1986), Badenhorst (2007, 2008) and Murray (2009),
freewriting is a process rather than a product. Elbow (2000) claims that freewriting removes
most of the risks and constraints involved in academic writing. By removing self-imposed
constraints, for example, to always write perfectly and fluently, freewriting puts life into writing
by allowing voice, energy and presence to emerge. Writers begin to ‘speak’ on paper (Elbow
2000, 86). Further, when writers regularly do freewriting, they obtain satisfaction and pleasure
from it. Writing becomes an occasion of discovery rather than drudgery.
So, in summary, according to Elbow (2000), Goldberg (1986) and Badenhorst (2007),
freewriting releases ideas and thoughts to flow and to be gathered. It gets words on paper. It
improves thinking. It is enjoyable. It is also a strategy for capturing and extending the writer’s
voice (Richardson 2000).
The unstructured nature of freewriting can be a challenge for researchers who have been
taught that writing is an activity that comes after research, that is, after reading, thinking and
data analysis. Such researchers might protest that they have nothing to say, or that they are not
yet ready to write (Murray 2009, 93). They believe that ‘writing up’ is an end-product of
research, conducted according to strict disciplinary norms. For writers who hold this belief,
writing is not an integral, dynamic or creative part of research; it is simply a medium for
recording or reporting research.
Some research writers, especially those in the physical sciences, would argue that
academic writing must conform to implicit disciplinary or professional conventions, for
example, that the writer is invisible, objective and has no voice (Richardson 2000). Academic
language and academic writing sustain the exclusivity and authority of disciplinary discourse,
distinguishing between those who understand it and those who do not (Badenhorst, Moloney,

129
Castle Benefits of freewriting for academic staff engaged in a writing retreat

Dyer, Rosales and Murray 2015). For these reasons, some academics mistakenly perceive the
creative, playful aspects of freewriting as childish or purposeless. They might charge that
freewriting is whimsical, or unfocused, or flimsy – a waste of time. In response to these charges,
Elbow (2000), Richardson (2000), Badenhorst (2007) and Murray (2009) marshal a strong
defence of freewriting. They would argue, first of all, that writing conventions and standards
are not fixed, but change over time; that research genres are becoming blurred (Badenhorst
2007). There is no ‘one right way to write’, as Richardson (1998; 2000) pointed out. The
relationship between scientific and literary writing has become increasingly complex,
especially in the humanities and social sciences (Badenhorst 2007). Secondly, writing a
conference paper, an article or a thesis chapter is not something produced instantly according
to a formula. It is a process which takes place in stages. The initial stage may include a variety
of freewrites, sketches, thoughts, lists and mindmaps. Badenhorst (2008) calls this stage ‘pre-
writing’. The next, and longer, stage is ‘writing freely’, in which the notes and ideas from the
pre-writing stage are gathered and arranged into a more coherent and meaningful ‘academic’
form. The final stage is revising or editing. The stages are not discrete and linear, but rather
iterative, or circular, possibly spiral-like.
Many of the ideas and concepts presented above suggest that writing with like-minded
others, so that the benefits which accrue from freewriting can be shared, could prove valuable.
A process-oriented writing retreat is an ideal place to do freewriting, as I show below.

Writing retreats and writing pedagogy

All writing retreats offer participants time and space for writing and to develop their writing. In
their earlier work, Benvenuti, Castle and Keane (2013) described the process-oriented writing
retreat as a type of retreat that provides a space and time protected from the incessant demands
of the university, as described by Grant (2006). The process-oriented retreat provides a balance
between the solitude needed to write, and the social benefits provided by a community of writers
(Castle and Keane 2016a). It provides a series of opportunities to explore writing.
The structure of a process-oriented retreat is flexible; negotiated with participants who
forward their ideas, interests, and goals to the facilitator in advance of, and during, the retreat.
The values sustained in a process-oriented retreat, including harmony, collegiality, trust,
creativity and transformation, are reflected in the retreat’s pedagogy and structure, in which
solitude and communal activities are interspersed. In Benvenuti et al. (2013) and Castle and
Keane (2016b), the process-oriented retreat is linked to the concept and practices associated
with academic literacies (Street 1984), and to the development of collegial and supportive

130
Castle Benefits of freewriting for academic staff engaged in a writing retreat

relationships. It contrasts with the ‘structured’ or ‘product-oriented’ retreat (which is more like
a course or workshop) in which students and academics are taught how to write journal articles
and thesis chapters, under the banner of capacity building.
In a process-oriented writing retreat, the, participants sit around a large conference table
with space for their notebooks, pens, laptops and other props. After freewriting for several
minutes, instigated by a prompt devised by the facilitator, writers are invited to read their
freewrites aloud to others, often in pairs or triads. The reading aloud process acknowledges and
appreciates the diversity of voices and the quality of ideas produced by writers through
freewriting, and also builds confidence among them, in their ability to generate meaningful text,
quickly and easily. Reading aloud gives the writer distance from the experience of writing the
text, and releases her from the intensity of her writing (Kamler 2001, 61). Writers take turns
reading aloud and soliciting responses and critique from others.
Process-oriented writing retreats provide a favourable context for reflection and writing.
They offer time away from work to think, read and write, in a pleasant ambience. They foster
collegiality and mutual respect among writers, and pleasure in learning about, and from
colleagues in other disciplines. This is in addition to any practices, strategies and skills
developed during the retreat.
In the section above on freewriting, I showed that proponents of freewriting, such as
Goldberg (1986), Elbow (2000) and Badenhorst (2008), indicate that freewriting has the
potential to generate and gather original thoughts and ideas. It gets words on the page. It is
quick, easy and enjoyable, and therefore eliminates writer’s block, building confidence in the
writer and her writing. I also suggested that freewriting, used in a group setting such as a writing
retreat, could elicit authentic voices, lateral thinking and reflection, both forward and backward
moving. I propose next to provide evidence for these claims by presenting and analysing three
freewrites produced by doctoral students in a process-oriented writing retreat, but before that, I
will present the research design and process.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCESS

Context and participants

The writing retreat described in this article was one of 27 retreats that a colleague and I had
designed and facilitated for academic staff of the University of the Witwatersrand between 2011
and 2015 (Castle and Keane 2016a). Due to austerity measures introduced by the university in
2015, budgets for academic staff development activities were slashed. Residential writing

131
Castle Benefits of freewriting for academic staff engaged in a writing retreat

retreats offered by the Centre for Learning, Teaching and Development (CLTD) were among
the first casualties. In 2015, a non-residential retreat was held in a ‘no frills’ conference venue
on campus, as a cost-cutting measure. There was only one facilitator, the author, and there were
fewer participants than had been usual in our retreats – nine writers, rather than ten or twelve.
Eight of the nine participants in the writing retreat were mature adults employed as
Lecturers or Senior Lecturers in the Faculty of Humanities. The ninth participant was employed
as a Senior Lecturer in a professional school of another faculty. All but two of the participants
were registered for part-time study, as they were engaged in full-time employment at the
university. The traditional model of PhD students as young, full-time scholars supported by
research grants applied to only one of the participants, who held a research grant that allowed
her to study full-time.
Eight of the participants were writing specific chapters of their theses or working on
journal articles derived from their theses. One participant was developing a conference paper.
The research interests of the participants varied considerably, and were located in
disciplines including sports science, music, art history, mathematics, law and sociology.
All nine participants had participated in previous residential writing retreats conducted by
CLTD over the years, and all had previously completed an eight-day research writing course in
which freewriting and other writing development strategies were introduced.
I asked the nine academics in the retreat to reflect on how they might do things differently,
given the opportunity to start their doctoral thesis again. I devised the prompt ‘If I were starting
my thesis again ...’. ‘The participants completed the freewrite by hand in the four minutes
allocated for it. They agreed to share their writing by reading it aloud to the group, and took
turns to do so. They had the option to pass, if they preferred not to read. None of them exercised
this option.

Research design
I had not decided on freewriting as a focus for research in advance of the retreat. The
participants were all current doctoral students or very recently graduated doctoral students; I
devised a prompt to stimulate freewriting on a topic they all had in common, to break the ice.
The participants took turns to read their freewriting aloud to one another, and I was struck by
some of the things they said, as were others at the table. I asked them if I could gather and
photocopy their freewrites for research purposes. I gathered their writing with their informed
consent, after discussing ethical considerations with them, including the need to disguise their
names to protect confidentiality. Anonymity could not be promised within the small group, in

132
Castle Benefits of freewriting for academic staff engaged in a writing retreat

which the members all knew one another.

In the week after the retreat I typed up each handwritten freewrite separately and sent it to
the writer by email, along with a copy of the original handwritten freewrite. I enquired whether
the writer wished to make any corrections or adjustments to their text. Some writers made minor
changes to words that I had misspelled, misinterpreted or omitted in transcription. I then read,
re-read and analysed all nine freewrites to identify key themes in, and characteristics of, the
freewrites. I chose three of the nine freewrites to use as case studies because they showed
different personal approaches to the task, while illustrating particular features of freewriting. I
undertook dialogue and member checks with the three writers by email to strengthen the validity
of my interpretation of the data. I asked each writer to approve my analysis of her freewrite.
I attempted to use rich, thick description to convey the context and findings so that the
reader would get a sense of shared experience, and to enhance the trustworthiness and
credibility of the study (Cresswell 2007). I then reflected on the entire research experience to
extract principles and draw conclusions from the freewrites.

RESEARCH FINDINGS
The first of the three freewrites is by Dee whose text resonates with Elbow’s (2000) assertion
that freewriting allows voice, energy and presence to emerge.

If I were starting my thesis again ... Oh no! To go back to the start line – was it because I false-started?
– wrong! Back to the beginning – but this could be a good thing – a fresh page – to start having learned
so many lessons. Perhaps this time I would be prepared – I would be organised – I would approach it
so differently.
Thinking back, it would be wonderful to have done the training before starting the ultra-marathon.
There wouldn’t be so many technical errors – this would certainly improve my performance. Perhaps
too my coach + I would have been able to develop a more constructive relationship – I would feel more
confident, more prepared, ready to start ....
But I am so far down the track, I need to survive the injuries, the muscle fatigue, the mental anguish
– I need to get to the end!!
[overleaf]
If I were writing ...
I would fully understand my proposed research having explored every angle – inside, outside,
upside down ....
The race would be run at a slow steady pace, moving one step at a time, without distraction. (Dee)

Dee wrote a dialogue with her inner self which related the ‘long haul’ of writing a thesis to
running a marathon. She pointed to the injuries, fatigue and anguish which characterise long
distance running and writing a doctoral thesis; the humiliation of a ‘false start’; the
unanticipated ‘performance’ problems arising from lack of knowledge or training.

133
Castle Benefits of freewriting for academic staff engaged in a writing retreat

Her metaphor of the ultra-marathon is interesting. Readers who have written a doctoral
thesis are likely to identify with Dee’s remembered pain and frustration. Dee’s voice is wry,
ironic ... but also hopeful. She quickly rethinks her situation in order to see if there are
alternatives to the mortification of a ‘false start’ (‘wrong!’ as she says). Hindsight has given her
insight. She imagines a ‘fresh start’, with better planning, preparation and resources.
In a skilful and amusing way, Dee’s freewrite communicates her realisation that managing
oneself is important– in running a marathon, as in writing a thesis. Developing resilience and
pacing oneself is necessary. Maintaining relationships is essential. She picks herself up, dusts
herself off, and keeps running (and writing).
Like Dee’s freewriting, Kay’s freewrite is evocative and her voice is distinctive.

If I were starting my thesis again, I would make sure I was ready to do it. I would undertake the
study as a full-time student. I would have a lot more faith in my own ideas and [my] own vision. I
would take a long time to choose the topic and the supervisor/s. I would be more insistent that the
process dimensions followed what I need to be a good researcher and writer. I would dedicate most/
all of my time to my thesis. I would spend much more time than I have been able to do immersed
in the literature and the theory. I would enjoy the process much more and have fun with it. I would
start the formal writing process very early rather than very late. I would be confident with rough
ideas, unformulated ideas and non-ideas rather than waiting for the big idea to develop from
nowhere. I would hope to realise that writing is a struggle and so would begin my conquest from
the beginning with the grace of a novice writer, with ambition and gaining confidence. I would not
allow myself to be whittled away but would hope to grow from strength to strength and I would
most importantly ensure I was trained in discipline and vaccinated from distraction and self-
deprecation. I would find ways to be pleasantly and happily at that desk working every day without
resentment, fear and loathing. I would most of all want the PhD to be everything it has not been:
my friend and love, my dream and my achievement. (Kay)

Kay is someone who has thought long and hard about the debilitating process she has been
trapped in. Unlike Dee, Kay’s feelings of regret and resentment run so deep that they prevent
her from imagining steps she could take to retrieve her situation. The only way to save her thesis
and her confidence would be a completely new start.
In her freewrite, Kay contrasts her actual and desired emotional states when writing her
thesis. It is a text which reveals bitter disappointment in every aspect of doctoral study, from
the amount of time she was able to devote to study, to the poor choice (or allocation) of a
supervisor. She has been ‘whittled away’ by repeated painful experiences. She yearns for the
confidence, strength, faith and vision to complete her doctorate. She has a vision of her thesis
– her ‘friend and love’, her ‘dream and achievement’, but she cannot, at this stage of her studies,
summon the confidence, or energy, to bring her dream to fruition. So, her vision of doctoral
study is revealed as a delusion, while her labours thus far resemble a nightmare from which she
cannot escape.

134
Castle Benefits of freewriting for academic staff engaged in a writing retreat

In Kay’s case, freewriting has released feelings, ideas and thoughts to flow and be gathered.
On the one hand, this release allows her to identify the source of her injury and pain, to
acknowledge feelings of abandonment and resentment with respect to her thesis and her
supervisor(s). On the other hand, it has developed her thinking and creativity, as revealed in the
poignant metaphors she gave to the alter ego of her doctoral thesis. Whether she will act on, or
adjust, the feelings that have been released remains to be seen.
Anne’s freewrite, in the third case study, is remarkably fluent and creative. It is inviting to
read. Anne freewrites frequently and derives meaning and pleasure from it. She is interested in
what she thinks (Richardson 2000).

If I were writing my thesis again I would write more precisely from the beginning, and I would try
to write more creatively, to take more risks with the language and style. A three act play! Imagine
that. A novel? I would spend a lot more time working out the structure of the whole at the beginning
so that I would avoid the back and forth, back and forth of the fiddling with the structure at the
middle and at the end. I would believe I could do it the whole way rather than lose confidence as I
have. Show the drafts more often than I have – not be scared to show the messiness of the process
because I believe it is an essential part of the process. Would I change my topic? Not sure my topic
has not been what I thought it was. I would definitely play more and fret less. Writing with energy
and enthusiasm and joy – it’s not too late to start writing like this. (Anne)

Freewriting helps Anne to ‘get it down’ (on the page) so that she can explore her own thoughts
and ideas in relation to others’. She is also interested in discovering new strategies for writing
and new ways of expressing herself, as an artist, a writer and a researcher. The freewrite
captures her belief that writing should be an integral, and creative, aspect of research.
Anne plays with the possibility of injecting more creativity, more confidence and more risk-
taking in her writing, implying that she is motivated to change aspects of her writing, and that
she is aware that she can, through writing, reap rewards of pleasure. She recognises the
messiness of the creative process as an essential part of writing, and counsels herself about steps
that she could take to avoid the struggle with structure (the ‘back and forth, back and forth’ that
she experienced while ‘fiddling with the structure’ of her thesis). She ends on a positive note:
it’s not too late to start writing ‘like this’ – with energy and enthusiasm and joy. Her freewrite
expresses Anne’s acceptance that becoming temporarily ‘lost’, or losing track, is part of a
creative process and part of discovering oneself, in writing, as in other artistic endeavours
(Cameron 1995; Badenhorst 2008).

REFLECTION AND DISCUSSION OF THE RESEARCH FINDINGS

The three freewrites above were chosen for the way they exemplify the voice, energy and
presence of the writer, which Elbow (2000) announced as a benefit, or outcome, of freewriting.

135
Castle Benefits of freewriting for academic staff engaged in a writing retreat

In addition, the freewrites show that tacit knowledge, previous knowledge and experiential
knowledge, in this case of doctoral study, can be harnessed usefully in freewriting. They also
show that aspects of personal identity and emotion are released in freewriting; aspects which
might not be revealed in a doctoral thesis or journal article.
The freewriting prompt, ‘If I were writing my thesis again ...’ elicited creative, imaginative
responses from the three writers. Hindsight is a way of reflecting back on experience and also
a way of consoling oneself. Hindsight allows the writer to recognise alternative ways of feeling,
thinking, writing and being (about the topic, supervisor, writing, and processes that take place
during doctoral study). Freewriting allows these alternative ways of being and doing to be
captured on the page, and to be shared with and appreciated by others.
The freewrites amplify Burford’s (2014) call for more attention to be given to emotion
and context of doctoral study, and Mouton et al.’s (2015) view that doctoral students are not
adequately equipped and supported by their institutions to produce good work in the high
pressure context of higher education in South Africa. A writing retreat, especially one which
incorporates strategies and processes to encourage writers to try out new ways of thinking and
writing, and to share their views and experiences of writing with one another, can greatly
enhance writers’ ability to write generatively and with pleasure and confidence.
The desire to develop a sense of agency and identity as a writer and researcher was a
feature of the three freewrites presented in this article. The wealth of ideas, and the diversity of
voices produced in the freewrites, is testimony to the capacity of freewriting to generate ideas
and text, mobilise different kinds of knowledge, and develop writers’ confidence and creativity.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This article was written in a generative and enjoyable writing retreat held in the Western Cape,
South Africa, supported by funding from the Department of Higher Education’s National
Collaborative Teaching Development Grant for improving teaching and learning in South
African universities. I wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers who commented on an
earlier draft of this article, as well as my Wits colleagues, Sue Benvenuti and Moyra Keane,
who always contribute ideas, encouragement and laughter to writing endeavours. Most of all, I
thank Anne, Dee and Kay for allowing their freewrites to be revealed and analysed in this
article.

REFERENCES
Badenhorst, C. 2007. Research writing: Breaking the barriers. Pretoria: Van Schaik.
Badenhorst, C. 2008. Dissertation writing: A research journey. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

136
Castle Benefits of freewriting for academic staff engaged in a writing retreat

Badenhorst, C., C. Moloney, J. Dyer, J. Rosales and M. Murray. 2015. Thinking creatively about
research writing. In Working with academic literacies: Research, theory, design, ed. T. Lillis, K.
Harrington, M. Lea and S. Mitchell, 227‒254. South Carolina: WAC Clearinghouse/Parlor Press.
Benvenuti, S., J. Castle and M. Keane. 2013. Writing retreats in response to the ‘incessant demands’ of
the university. Paper presented at the 4th World Conference on Learning, Teaching and
Educational Leadership. Published online in Procedia ‒ Social and Behavioural Sciences 000-000
www.sciencedirect.com/
Burford, J. 2014. Doctoral writing as an affective practice: Keep calm and carry on? In Pushing
boundaries in postgraduate supervision, ed. E. Bitzer, L. R. Albertyn, L. Frick, B. Grant and F.
Kelley, 69‒84. Stellenbosch: SUN Press.
Cameron, J. 1995. The artist’s way. London: Pan Macmillan.
Castle, J. and M. Keane. 2016a. Retreating to write: Are publications the only important outcome?
Alternation 23(1): 265‒284.
Castle, J. and M. Keane. 2016b. ‘It was an oasis in a busy life, a busy city’: The Centre for Learning,
Teaching and Development (CLTD) writing retreat. Journal of Education 66: 207‒225.
Cresswell, J. 2007. Qualitative enquiry and research design. 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, London and
New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Elbow, P. 2000. Everyone can write. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, N. 1986. Writing down the bones. Freeing the writer within. Boston and London: Shambhala.
Grant, B. 2006. Writing in the company of other women: Exceeding the boundaries. Studies in Higher
Education 31(4): 483‒495.
Harrison, L. 2011. PaperHeaDs: Living doctoral study, developing doctoral identity. Bern: Peter Lang.
Kamler, B. 2001. Relocating the personal: A critical writing pedagogy. Norwood, SA: Australian
Association for the Teaching of English.
Mouton, J., N. Boshoff and M. James. 2015. A survey of doctoral supervisors in South Africa. South
African Journal of Higher Education 29(2): 1‒22.
Murray, R. 2009. Writing for academic journals. 2nd Edition. Maidenhead Bks and New York: Open
University Press and McGraw Hill.
Murray, R. 2013. Writing for academic journals. Maidenhead and New York: Open University Press.
Murray, R. and S. Moore. 2006. The handbook of research writing: A fresh approach. New York:
McGraw Hill and Open University Press.
Richardson, L. 1998. Writing: A method of inquiry. In Handbook of qualitative research, ed. N. K.
Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 345‒371. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Richardson, L. 2000. New writing practices in qualitative research. Sociology of Sport Journal 17: 5‒
20.
Street, B. 1984. Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

137