Conflict, collaboration and counterpoint: analysing iterative research techniques within the research development narrative.

This collaborative paper presents analyses of narrative data in the form of iterative journal writing based around a research development project. Drawing on aspects of complexity theory (notably iteration) we show how narrative form can simultaneously critique, inform and support the development of academic writers on a personal level.
After introducing ourselves and our rationale for undertaking this research, we present our iterative writing methodology and our approach to analysis. This approach troubles a narrative in researcher development which sees the notion of ‘publish or perish’ as a counterproductive exercise in human capital development, highlighting the extent to which the expectation is individualistic and confrontational. Our findings suggest that trustful collaborative writing partnerships where authentic voices and notions of agency and choice are mutually nurtured have the potential to counter deficit notions, which include guilt, stasis and resentment. Findings also suggest that shared narratives can unlock provocations that create urgency and space in the timebound lives of researchers and thus stronger motivation towards activism through connectivity.

Ultimately, we argue for the need to express and develop emotional engagement with writing for publication in pedagogical settings. As a precursor to writing; as a foundation for selfhood; and as a fertile area for research itself, this neglected aspect of learning is, we argue, crucial to successful engagement with the increasingly significant publication narrative.

Berridge, K. (2018) ‘Evolving Concepts of Emotion and Motivation’ Frontiers in Psychology Volume: 9

Byrne, D. and Callaghan, G. (2014) Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: The State of the Art Oxon: Routledge

Gardner, M. (2018) ‘Writing Together for Academic Publication as a Youth-Adult PAR Team: Moving from Distance and Distaste towards Transformative Engagement’ Educational Action Research Volume: 26 Issue 2