For this project, I want to understand how I can better support students in writing for publication, with the aim of proposing an intervention that leads to positive change. This involves reflecting on students’ barriers to publishing and identifying what other forms of support or resources students may need that are not currently available at UAL.
In this sense, the methods used comprise:
Semi-structured interviews:
I chose interviews as a research method because they allowed for more developed, reflective answers. Given the nature of the topic – writing for publication – I anticipated that participants’ experiences and opinions would vary widely, and that the subject might feel highly personal to them.
I opted for semi-structured interviews so that participants could shape the direction of the conversation. The group included individuals with different levels of experience: not only postgraduate students, but also those involved in supporting students. This allowed me to explore the topic from multiple perspectives.
Although I prepared guiding questions, these were intentionally flexible. I allowed participants to lead the conversation, responding to what they felt was important to discuss. My role was less about directing and more about listening and responding.
This approach revealed issues that extended beyond writing for publication itself. (My initial research question was focused exclusively on writing – see Research question blog) Students and those who support them identified additional barriers that shape their relationship to writing for publication. As a result, the interviews required me to listen, reflect, and slightly shift the original focus of my research in response to what emerged.
The following interview questions were designed to guide the discussions.
Analyses of interviews
Interviews were conducted online via Microsoft Teams, which provides an automatic transcription tool. Following the interviews, I made notes on the main points discussed, focusing on aspects that I considered particularly significant in relation to students’ experiences of writing for publication. This process served as a way of recording and analysing the data, and as a means of familiarisation and immersion in the material, allowing me to reflect on how I was interpreting and unpacking the data (Braun and Clarke, 2018). As these authors identify, themes do not simply “emerge” from the data but are actively constructed through the researcher’s interpretive process. My analysis therefore inevitably reflects my own subjectivity and positionality within the research.
The interview transcripts were subsequently edited and shortened using AI tools, and then reviewed, edited, and highlighted by me. This was done to capture the main points of each interview, rather than to reproduce the full conversations verbatim, and to ensure that participants’ contributions could be presented concisely.
Analyses of available resources (academic support, doctoral school)
Part of this research project involves analysing the resources at UAL that already exist to support students’ academic writing and writing for publication. This includes provision offered through academic support and the doctoral school, such as writing workshops, one-to-one tutorials, and online guidance. My intention is to map out what the university offers and understand their value for students in order to inform the proposal of an intervention.
The analysis draws on PhD student conversations, my experiences using and providing these resources, and my reflections on how they operate in practice. It is structured around four categories: Purpose and scope, Accessibility and engagement, Pedagogical approach, and Value.
Theoretical research
Alongside empirical methods, theoretical research shapes and informs this action research project. Engaging with literature on academic writing and publication practices allows me to frame students’ experiences within broader debates about academic knowledge production. In this sense, theory is part of the action research cycle by supporting a reflective dialogue between practice, data, and conceptual understanding.
Testing
Testing, within an action research framework, refers to trying out ideas in practice. As insights emerge from interviews, resource analysis, and reflection, I aim to propose small-scale interventions to student support. Given the nature and timeframe of this research, this stage is propositional, as there is no time to implement and test new approaches to improving student support.
Reflexivity
My role in supporting students with writing inevitably shapes the questions I ask, the relationships I form, and the interpretations I make. Reflexivity involves critically examining my assumptions about what “good” writing support looks like, how power operates within support relationships, and how my own academic experiences influence my practice.
References:
Clarke, V. & Braun, V. (2018) Thematic analysis – an introduction. Lecture, University of the West of England, Bristol. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kv7C53yvLqk (Accessed 3 January 2026)
Elliott, J. (2001) A practical Guide to Action research in Action research for educational change. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Guest, G., MacQueen, K.M. and Namey, E.E. (2012) Applied thematic analysis. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
Kara, H. (2015) Creative Research Methods in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Bristol: Policy Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.56687/9781447320258.
McNiff, J. (2013) Action research: principles and practice. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.
Tomal, D.R. (2003) Action research for educators. Lanham, Md: Scarecrow Press.