I began this research with the intention of exploring how I could better support student writing for publication, particularly for students whose first language is not English. However, as the research developed and interviews were undertaken, it became clear that language was not perceived by students as the main barrier. Instead, students identified a range of broader issues related to the process of writing for publication itself. In response to this, I shifted the focus of the research to address writing for publication more broadly, rather than concentrating solely on linguistic aspects. (Research Question)
There are clear limitations to this project, both in relation to its scope and to my own positionality as a researcher. The peer review group that forms part of this research – both as a proposed intervention and as my main way of supporting students and colleagues with writing for publication – is not embedded within the curriculum and operates across colleges, which makes it difficult to access a consistent or focused group of participants. Conducting surveys or gathering data from a larger cohort of PhD students was not feasible within the timeframe and structure of the project. Additionally, interviewing only three PhD students raises the risk that the findings could be read as anecdotal rather than representative. These constraints are important to acknowledge and frame the research as exploratory. (Methods Used)
Despite these limitations, the issues raised by students align with those identified in the literature. What I think is particularly interesting in this research is the specific context of the arts and the nature of the work being produced. Many students at UAL undertake practice-based or practice-led research, which can be complex to translate into a written, theoretical paper, often with limited visual support. (Some journals do address practice-based research and accept visual or hybrid forms of argument, but this remains a challenging transition for many students.) The interviews suggest that this difficulty is shared. Addressing this fully would require a broader enquiry into questions of knowledge production and value within the arts, an area I have not explored here but which is discussed in Robert Gadie’s The Art School PhD: What is the problem of knowledge? (2022).
It is also important to recognise that writing for publication is not the only form of public output in the arts. Many researchers/academics/students are practitioners, and publication may not be central to their practice in the same way it does in other humanities or social science disciplines. This may also mean that some academic staff and supervisors are less accustomed to supporting this type of contribution.
Overall, the research suggests that students at UAL experience the process of publication as complex and demanding. The main challenges identified include a lack of understanding of the publishing process, uncertainty about where to find appropriate journals, the emotional difficulty of making work public and facing potential rejection, and uncertainty about how to translate their research into a publishable paper. While there are a range of resources available at UAL that address specific aspects of publishing, such as writing support, community-building, and contextual guidance, students’ awareness and experiences of these resources vary. Those interviewed found some of them useful but expressed a desire for two particular forms of support: direct, individual guidance from someone with publishing experience and knowledge of their field, and a supportive community of peers working towards publication. (Data Analysis)
In response to this, the interventions proposed aim to address these needs in manageable ways. One intervention involves making small but focused adjustments to my existing peer review group: provide a clearer overview of publishing processes, opportunities for expert input, and a stronger sense of community. The second intervention proposes giving students the opportunity to organise a conference and engage directly with publishing processes as a way of demystifying them. (Action Plan)
Finally, I hope that this research may be useful to others working in similar contexts. It should be read with an understanding of its scale and timeframe: as a three-month action research project with all its limitations. But I hope it can function as a provocation, opening up further discussion about how writing for publication is understood, supported, and valued within arts-based research contexts. (Rationale for this research: Notes on Reading)