Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol. 20, No. 1 (2022)

Center-ing Graduate Writers’ Beliefs, Practices and Help Seeking Behaviors

Victoria L. O’Connor
Oakland University
voconnor@oakland.edu

Red D. Douglas
Oakland Unviersity
rddouglas@oakland.edu

Sherry Wynn Perdue
Oakland University
wynn@oakland.edu

Abstract

With this mixed method study, we sought to gain a data supported understanding of graduate students’ writing beliefs, practices, and help-seeking behaviors at Oakland University, a Midwestern public, doctoral-granting university with higher research activity (R2), and an assessment of how our writing center programming is perceived to address those needs. Although respondents indicated they felt supported by their supervisors, they rarely met with these advisors, found few venues in their departments for writing-specific support, and struggled to find time to write. In addition to this mismatch between their beliefs and the support available, we also found that graduate students who felt their needs went unmet by their respective departments and advisors were more likely to seek out assistance from the writing center and to attend writing center sponsored writing retreats, workshops, and consultations. Those who reported attending writing center graduate programming found that the resources, accountability, and writing support facilitated their success. Overall, this study sought to deepen our understanding of graduate students at our university so we might better serve them and to extend existing Writing Center Studies scholarship with empirical research that is replicable within or transferrable to other settings.

As recent collections have demonstrated (Brooks-Gillies et al.; Lawrence et al.; Madden et al.), graduate students' writing support needs are distinct from those of their undergraduate counterparts. While there has been growth in both the body of research devoted to graduate writers and specialized writing-center programming, gaps persist. This article represents one writing center’s efforts to echo a 2014 call by Doreen Starke-Meyering for empirical investigations of graduate writers—particularly during the dissertation stage—conducted by and from the perspective of graduate writers themselves (Brooks-Gillies et al.). More specifically, our research details the findings of a mixed-method study of graduate students’ writing beliefs, practices, and help seeking behaviors at Oakland University (OU), a Midwestern, public, doctoral-granting university with higher research activity (R2), in relationship to the services its writing center provides for them.

Since opening in 2006, the Oakland University Writing Center (OUWC) has experienced a significant increase (from 2% to 15% and rising) of graduate students seeking writing consultations. Of that cohort, an ever-increasing percentage are international and/or multilingual graduate writers, many of whom struggle with the syntax, diction, and the word order of American English, in addition to the challenges presented by academic research genres. Moreover, because most student services available to OU undergraduates are not available to its graduate students and because OU lacks support for research-specific needs like designing, analyzing, and reporting statistics, the OUWC has expanded its services to better address graduate student needs. This expansion includes programs regarding research, writing, wellness, and supervision as identified by the extant literature, the Council of Graduate Schools’ (CGS) data and reports, client feedback, and informal consultant observations.

Ample anecdotal evidence (client comments, emails, and informal observations of writer growth) has suggested that OUWC programs (writing retreats, one-on-one consulting, workshops, and statistical consulting) help graduate students understand and write themselves into their disciplines and thereby help individual writers persist. While anecdotes and lore can draw our attention to potential challenges and interventions, members of academic communities rely upon more systematic forms of inquiry, both qualitative and quantitative, to address our questions, confirm our hypotheses, and affirm our claims to best practices (Babcock and Thonus; Driscoll and Wynn Perdue). With this mixed-method study, therefore, we sought to directly explore the writing beliefs, practices, and help-seeking behaviors of OU graduate students as well as to indirectly assess programming designed to address their support needs. Findings not only provide us with a better understanding of campus graduate writers, but also inform how we revise/design, implement, and market future services for our own writing center. It is our additional hope that our findings will add to the greater Writing Center Studies research community by providing empirical evidence about graduate students and writing center programming. This data can be used to guide programming decisions and/or can be explored within comparison studies.

Institutional Background and Literature review

Institutional Context of Graduate Writing Support

At our institution, most decision-making about doctoral policy and programming resides within its seven colleges rather than in its Graduate School. OU’s Graduate Council, a permanent standing committee of its University Senate, plays a largely advisory role, offering recommendations about existing and proposed degree programs. Because the Graduate School neither mandates nor provides centralized support, the university writing center (OUWC) has sought to fill this support-gap since 2006 with increasingly scaffolded services that extend far beyond a focus on writing. Most of these innovations were identified as “promising practices” within the Council on Graduate Schools’ Ph.D. Completion and Attrition: Policies and Practices to Promote Student Success, which drew upon seven years of data on graduate support programming implemented by 250 departments across 21 diverse U.S. and Canadian institutions.

Over the last decade, OUWC services have grown from consultations on course papers and high stakes documents like dissertations and publications offered solely by the director to workshops on writing and non-writing topics alike, guidance on statistical analysis and reporting results, writing retreats organized and staffed by graduate consultants, and a year-long fellowship for doctoral supervisors. These programs are tailored to the needs of doctoral students and reflect the scholarship on doctoral student support cited herein, but they are open to masters and certificate students, and our study recruited participants at all stages and within all graduate programs.

Why Do (All) Graduate Students Need Targeted Writing Support?

The nature of doctoral education and the research university in which it is undertaken is dramatically different from the knowledge-making and reproduction role Wilhelm von Humboldt introduced in the early nineteenth century at the University of Berlin and which shaped the development of doctoral education in the United States (Taylor). Since the early 1990s, North American doctoral education has experienced a series of socio-cultural and economic changes with important implications for graduate students, their faculty supervisors, and the campus units that might support them. Stanley Taylor, the most widely cited scholar to examine these factors, has identified the following processes as ushering in the post-Humboldtian doctorate with the need for more robust support: “massification; internalisation; diversification, commodification; McDonaldisation; regulation; proliferation; and capitalisation” as well as “casualisation; dislocation augmentation; and cross-fertilization” (120). To put it more simply, the doctorate is now pursued for any number of purposes by people from all social and economic strata (Zhou and Gao). Today's doctoral students may study full or part time, but enter with the expectation to leave within a prescribed time frame; they may study in a language that is not their first in a country that is not their own; they may undertake a project that transcends disciplinary and methodological boundaries; they may operate in cooperation with internal and external stakeholders; and/or they may have little prospect or intention of faculty employment (Halse and Malfoy; Kent; Lee, "How Are Doctoral”; Taylor). In sum, contemporary graduate study is no longer reserved for an elite few who fund their own study, undertake it for the purpose of reproducing knowledge, and serve as apprentices to equally elite disciplinary faculty (experts) who supervise them through to completion and academic employment (Taylor).

The changing nature of graduate education, the students who pursue it, and their reasons for doing so has important implications for graduate writers, their faculty, and the departments and institutions in which they operate. Perhaps the most notable is program attrition, particularly during the dissertation stage. While estimates vary and specific numbers are hard to access because graduate matriculation is not subject to the same federal scrutiny as undergraduate completion, as many as 50% of the students who enter PhD programs in the U.S. fail to complete their degrees (Council of Graduate Schools; DiPierro; Lovitts; Smallwood). While reasons cited for graduate students’ failure to persist vary, they include “financial concerns, lack of preparation and opportunity for research, personal, family or health concerns, and difficult relationships with doctoral advisors” (Maher et al. as qtd. in Harding-DeKam et al. 5). A 10-year analysis of matriculation rates at the research site suggests that roughly 61% of graduate students who enter a Doctor of Philosophy program earn their degree, although rates for clinical doctorates are higher (Oakland University Office of Institutional Research). While some attrition is to be expected, a rate of 39% begs the question: To what degree does a lack of centralized support contribute to that figure?

Historically, graduate supervisors have been shown to play an important role if not the most important role (Amundsen and McAlpine; Lee, “How Are Doctoral”; Paré et al., “Knowledge and Identity”) in their students’ journeys to internalize their disciplines’ “norms and values” (Bitchener et al.). With that said, dissertation pedagogy is undertheorized and understudied (Paré et al., “Knowledge and Identity”; Starke-Meyerring), particularly within the United States. The research that does exist strongly suggests that facilitating “highly specialized writing of advanced science and scholarship requires a profound sensitivity to, first, the peculiarities of one’s discipline and, second, the best ways of introducing newcomers to those peculiarities'' (Paré, “Speaking of Writing” 60). Most supervisors’ only preparation for dissertation supervision was their own experience with writing a dissertation, and their knowledge of writing is most likely plagued by a lack of shared language that scholars like Charles Bazerman have discussed. As such, membership within a discourse community brings with it the problem of “automaticity,” meaning supervisors’ expertise operates like a form of tacit knowledge that they struggle to articulate (Paré 62). The result, as existing empirical studies of dissertation feedback have suggested (Caffarella and Barnett; Can and Walker; Kumar and Stracke; Paré, “Speaking of Writing”), may be ambiguous or caustic comments that masquerade as revision-facilitating feedback but that lack the rhetorically specific markers to operate as a guide for necessary additions and change. In other cases, supervisors may forgo trying to explain such genre expectations and simply rewrite or overwrite sections of their graduate students’ existing texts, perhaps believing that their students will infer from the changes what they should do in subsequent sections (Wynn Perdue, Centering Dissertation Supervision).

The aforementioned conditions exacerbate what numerous scholars have deemed the “hidden curriculum” of graduate education (Acker; Calarco; Harding-DeKam et al.). In such a context, supervisors’ efforts to introduce discipline-aware and rhetorically informed discourse practices are hampered by their inability to turn “procedural or practical knowledge of disciplinary writing into declarative or teachable knowledge so that students can benefit from it” (Paré, “Speaking of Writing” 59-60). This writing-support gap is particularly problematic because “writing is the dominant way in which knowledge is presented and assessed” (Brooks-Gillies et al. 5). Graduate students must therefore compose themselves into their disciplines, constructing a scholarly identity through a process Barbara Kamler and Pat Thomson have described as textwork/identitywork (15). Moreover, and although graduate writing in some disciplines is too often conceived as a single author laboring alone (Mullen), this process of becoming a scholar is “not a solo pastime” (Kamler and Thomson 16-17) but rather complex labor that requires robust support from disciplinary natives like their supervisors as well as by outside experts who can help graduate students access threshold concepts (Kiley; Kiley and Wisker; Nowacek and Hughes). Therefore, writing centers like our own have increasingly stepped forward to become members of graduate writers’ support team.

While it is true that supervisors struggle to articulate what they know and expect within publications and the dissertation, their knowledge gap often is overshadowed by the belief that students should enter graduate school having already mastered the writing skills they will need to participate in complex academic discourses (Brooks-Gillies et al.; Gaillet; Thomas et al.). The persistence of this flattened view of disciplinary academic writing (Madden; Rose and McClaffery) not only may create a “disconnect between what graduate students are expected to know and the ways they approach and practice writing as they begin their graduate work” (Brooks-Gillies et al. 5) but also may circumscribe the perceived role of the writing center to remediation. Moreover, its persistence and the all-too-frequent resultant gap in structured graduate writing support invites devastating consequences. It feeds the misperceptions that writing is “a remedial skill that is separate from—rather than constitutive of—disciplinary content knowledge” (Madden n.p.). It ignores the opaque nature of writing in favor of the myth that "writing is a transparent ‘vehicle or conduit for delivering one’s findings’ (Rose and McClafferty) and nothing more” (Brooks-Gillies et al. 6). It neglects the reality of graduate study as “fraught with identity struggles and self-doubt, much of which centers around the ability to write effectively to meet the expectations of faculty mentors and the field at large” (Brook-Gillies et al. 6-7). And, perhaps most pervasive, it reinforces the misguided conclusion that the graduate writing problem is synonymous with individual writers who entered graduate school with a skills deficit rather than with the failure of graduate institutions to anticipate and address their needs (Gardner; Kamler and Thomson). 

As the body of research devoted to graduate education and grows we are hopeful that graduate supervisors and writing center professionals will reject the false choice between departmentally-isolated and extra-departmental, decontextualized writing support. Graduate writers, particularly dissertators, need an infrastructure of support that acknowledges their writing challenges as less about individual writers’ skills deficits than about the novelty of the task, cognitive overload, information illiteracy, genre (un)awareness, professional identity formation, and supervision training gaps (Aitchison and Guerin; Kamler and Thomson; Peelo). 

What Does the Reviewed Literature Reveal about Support for Graduate Writers and How Are Those Perspectives Reflected in Graduate Programming at Our Writing Center?

In this section, we briefly examine what the extant literature has to say about promising practices to “provid[e] writing assistance to all doctoral students,” particularly during the dissertation stage (Council of Graduate Schools 57-58) and explain how it guided our programming. While the reviewed literature addresses many innovations within and outside the center, we limit our discussion to those employed by our writing center in a direct outreach to graduate writers themselves: (a) writing retreats, (b) one-on-one consultations—including those on research design and reporting results—staffed by writing professionals and/or advanced graduate students, and (c) workshops. Although we are aware that many of our colleagues also host writing groups (Aitchison and Guerin; Phillips), our efforts to start them at the research site have not been embraced. We also are familiar with the robust literature on graduate supervision (e.g., Agu and Odimegwu; Amundsen and McAlpine; Bøgelund; González-Ocampo and Castelló; Kamler and Thomson; Lee, “How Are Doctoral”) and innovative new models for supervising graduate writers (e.g., Aykylina; Blessinger and Stockley; Carter-Veale et al.; Orellana et al.). Although Sherry wrote her dissertation on doctoral supervision and has hosted two iterations of a dissertation supervision fellowship for faculty at the research site, these programs are directed at or include faculty perceptions. Because our study prioritizes graduate writers’ self-reported beliefs, practices, and help-seeking behaviors as well as their perceptions of and experiences with writing center-sponsored programming, we opted not to address programs for faculty in this study.

Writing Retreats

Numerous publications have explored the efficacy of writing retreats to redress the lack of structured writing support available to increase research productivity (Grant; Lee and Golde; Paltridge; Thomas et al.); to combat the isolation and insecurity associated with high stakes writing (Grant; Murray and Newton; Tremby-Wragg et al.); and to provide accountability within a community of like-tasked individuals (Lee and Golde; Paltridge; Tremblay-Wragg et al.). Dissertation writing retreats, often referred to as dissertation boot camps (DBCs), generally fall into one of two models: Just Write or Writing Process (Lee and Golde). While Just Write DBCs primarily focus on productivity, Writing Process DBCs “work under the assumption that students’ writing productivity and motivation are significantly enhanced by consistent and on-going conversations about writing” (Lee and Golde 2).

Despite some criticism that Just Write DBCs forgo writing pedagogy and therefore miss “the opportunity to promote graduate students’ on-going development as writers” (Lee and Golde 3) or that gains made during the retreat may not be “sustainable when they return to campus” (Paltridge 200), both models—and iterations of them—are well represented on college campuses, often within multi-day or regularly scheduled writing sessions. Although Sherry was aware of these criticisms before creating our own writing retreat entitled Sit Down and Write! (SDW!), we were encouraged to pursue a modified version of a Just Write DBC by Consortium of Graduate Communication colleagues, a decision that was reinforced by a more recent study of Thesez-vous, a non-profit group organized by and for graduate students that offers 20-hour writing retreats across three consecutive days in Quebec, which noted that participant feedback led retreat organizers “to minimise time allotted to conferences and workshops to focus on writing as a priority” (Tremblay-Wragg et al. 6). Like Thesez-vous, we attempt to mediate the limits of a retreat by “modell[ing] techniques . . . for participants to reproduce effective writing practices at home” and “implement[ing] a structure to support after or in between writing retreats so they can continue to benefit from the valuable opportunities to write in the company of others'' (Tremblay-Wragg et al. 8). In our case, writing retreats are part of scaffolded support that includes Dissertation 101, a workshop series that extends the limited process-focused discussion within each retreat by offering presentations on such topics as writing the part-genres, particularly the literature review; organizing and analyzing data; and wellness habits. And most importantly, our graduate consultants offer targeted writing interventions to keep attendees on track within the retreat, which often leads to regularly scheduled writing consultations.

Whether organizers employ a Just Write or a Writing Process DBC, multiple studies have documented increased production, which attendees attribute to prolonged and uninterrupted writing time in a group setting with like tasked individuals (Dickson-Swift et al.; Grant; Jackon; Kornhaber et al.; Stewart). Retreats also have been credited as helping writers to find self-efficacy (Dickson-Swift et al.) and to see themselves as academic writers (Murray and Newton; Papen and Theriault; Tremblay-Wragg et al. 7-8). In sum, retreats offer graduate students accountability in a distraction-free, dedicated space that allows them to escape the isolation associated with advanced graduate work, a place where they can “learn by doing,” something other university support services do not provide (Tramblay-Wragg et al. 9).

Writing Center Consultations and Workshops

Serving graduate writers has called upon writing centers to revisit “principles and practices that have been definitional in writing center theory and pedagogy, and to examine how this endeavor complicates our already complex conversations about writing center identities, pedagogies, formats, and spaces” (Lawrence and Zawacki 9). By doing so, as Paula Gillespie, Talinn Phillips, and Sarah Summers have demonstrated, we must confront limitations present in our past assumptions about who can provide graduate consultations and acknowledge the training required to do so as well as determine whether or not existing centers and spaces can simply add on these services or whether they should be provided within a space designed for graduate writers (Phillips “Writing Center Support”).

Irrespective of where graduate consultations are conducted, writing centers, as Shannon Madden and Jerry Stinnett have argued, need to “rejec[t] outsourced mentorship” (n.p.). All graduate writers need scaffolded writing support as they learn to compose new genres within their disciplines. Not only is it inappropriate for faculty and departments to ignore these needs within the curriculum or to encourage writers to seek outside consulting (Madden and Stinnett), it also is inappropriate for extra-departmental units like writing centers to assume this role on their own. That is why the most successful graduate support programs to which writing centers contribute are “collaborative and cooperative” (Gillespie 2). Early efforts, such as the trialogue model Judith Powers employed at University of Wyoming to Gillespie’s work training disciplinary writing consultants at Marquette University to Sherry’s work facilitating a fellowship for faculty supervisors (Wynn Perdue, Centering Dissertation Supervision; “Epilogue”) share the understanding that the outside expertise of the writing professional must be complemented with the insider knowledge of the disciplinary scholar (Nowacek and Hughes). Successful programs also are “integrative” (Phillips, “Writing Center Support” 163), meaning that they acknowledge and address graduate students research needs. To that end, Phillips launched support for reporting statistical findings at Ohio University’s Graduate Writing and Research Center. Building upon and extending Phillips’ program, our writing center recruited graduate writing consultants with a strong statistical background and provided them with extensive training on common reporting errors as well as on the needs of graduate writers generally. Since our university has few resources for graduate students to seek empirical guidance, our graduate consultants offer feedback not only on the reporting but also on basic research design.

While almost all writing centers that serve graduate students also offer workshops, there is very little coverage of workshops within the professional literature; what does exist, including an article by Sherry (Switzer and Wynn) primarily focuses on program description. Despite this gap, workshops appear to be an important component of the integrated programming scholars like Phillips (“Writing Center Support”). In the case of our campus, workshops are another vehicle for brining like-tasked people together to discuss their common goals and challenges as well as extend beyond the production focus of our writing retreats.

Writing center scholarship on graduate programming, albeit still emergent, increasingly shows not only the ways that writing centers are serving graduate writers but also the complexity of vision writing centers are showing for how they intervene and partner with others.

Methods

We employed a mixed method design “to expand and strengthen [our study’s] conclusions'' (Schoonenboom and Johnson 110) and to ensure greater validity. In other words, we determined that integrating both quantitative and qualitative data within the same study would better allow us to answer our research questions than relying on one or the other (Creswell and Plano Clark). A survey (see Appendix A) developed in conjunction with the Dean of the Graduate School, an expert in survey design, was the main source of our quantitative data. Distributed to all graduate students on our campus, it allowed us to gather data on our primary research questions about graduate students’ writing beliefs, practices, and help-seeking behaviors as well as to determine whether respondents had used our services and, if so, how they perceived the writing center to address their needs. Many respondents did not indicate having used the writing center and our writing center data on graduate clients showed that a large contingent of our users—multilingual and international writers—were not represented because many had returned to their home countries and could not access their university email, which is powered by Google. (Access to Google is restricted in some countries (e.g., China), and because the survey was distributed to students via institutional email, these students did not receive invitations to participate in the study.) Given this drawback, we also drew upon existing institutional data (quantitative) and writing center data (both quantitative and qualitative) to supplement our findings. The most important of these existing data were satisfaction surveys, where graduate writers provided narrative accounts of their experiences with writing center programming. We used this qualitative data to triangulate our findings about the primary research questions and to gain a better understanding of writing center users’ experiences with our services and to compare their beliefs, practices, and help-seeking behaviors to those of respondents who have not used the writing center.

Data Sources: OIRA, WCOnline, and Client Questionnaires

As indicated above, we drew existing data from various sources. These sources included metrics provided by the university’s office of institutional research, system statistic reports from our online scheduling platform, WCOnline, and client questionnaires that were sent via Google Forms. Data from the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment (OIRA) revealed information about the demographics of the graduate student population at the university, and more specifically that part of the population which attends appointments. Data from the WCOnline system report included client demographics and information including majors/programs, courses, and professors. From the client questionnaires, we gathered information regarding clients’ experiences at the university and more specifically at the writing center. Google Forms stored and analyzed information on individual client’s perceptions and feedback of writing center services. These data were used to inform the writing center’s present and future programming as well as to provide a comparison to the survey data about writing center use.

Self-Reported Survey

A self-reported, IRB-approved survey was developed by the researchers to gain insight about graduate students’ writing beliefs, habits, and help-seeking behaviors as well as about how OUWC programming is perceived to address graduate writers’ needs (see Appendix A). The OU Graduate School not only was aware of our study, but the Dean provided feedback on our questions and distributed the survey. To incentivize participation in the study, graduate students were entered into a raffle to win one of five $20 gift cards upon completion of the survey. Those five individuals were randomly selected, notified by email, and received their prize upon closure of the survey.

The survey, conducted in Qualtrics™, consisted of 38 multiple choice, fill in the blank, Likert scale, and open-ended questions across five sections. After answering basic demographic questions, respondents were asked to provide information about their department and advisor, their individual writing practices, and their experience with OUWC programs (writing retreats, one-on-one consulting, workshops, and statistical consulting). By asking graduate students to report their academic information and perceptions about writing, we gathered data on their writing practices, including their beliefs and help-seeking behaviors. Furthermore, we received data on how OUWC programming is perceived to address their needs, information that would help us make informed decisions while designing, implementing, and marketing future services.

Data Collection and Analysis

From December 8, 2020, until January 6, 2021, the self-reported survey was taken voluntarily and anonymously by 125 graduate students. The survey was distributed through an email link sent by both the graduate school and the OUWC. All data were exported from Qualtrics™ and uploaded into SPSS for analysis. Twenty-five individuals did not complete the survey and were removed. Thus, we analyzed data from 100 graduate students. Descriptive statistics, including frequencies, means, standard deviations, and percentiles, were calculated. This section examines the quantitative results, beginning with the demographic of OU’s graduate student population and concluding with what we learned about their writing beliefs, practices, and help seeking behaviors.

Findings

General Demographics

The graduate student population at our institution was 3,452 for the fall 2020 semester, accounting for 22.86% of the total student population (n=15,100). Of these graduate students, 55.91% (n=1,930) were female and 44.09% (n=1,522) were male. Of those, 57.47% (n=1,984) were enrolled full time and 42.53% (n=1,468) were enrolled part time. Of note, 11% of the population were designated international students and 68% identified as white. The graduate student population was comprised of 2,145 master’s students, 1,277 doctoral students, and 30 students designated “other” (e.g., students seeking graduate certificates). The research site offers a total of 135 graduate programs.

Appointments with graduate students have accounted for approximately 15% of total appointments at the OUWC. Of these appointments, about 42% students had three or more visits, and roughly 15% visited more than 10 times. Nearly half (48.1%) of graduate student appointments at the OUWC were conducted with English-native students, whereas 16.25% were held with Arabic-native speakers, and 15.59% took place with students whose first language is Chinese or Mandarin.

Survey Findings

The 100 graduate students who responded to the survey self-reported their gender and age as described in Figures 1 and 2 (Appendix B). Using a binary logistic regression (X2(1)= 5.308, p<.05, R2= .072), gender was found to be a significant predictor of whether respondents asked for feedback from the writing center. Individuals that self-reported as females were more likely to have a consultation than individuals self-reported as males.

To better understand our graduate population, we surveyed students about their role as graduate students (see Figures 3-5 for more information). Within these demographic questions, we also queried participants’ relationship with the English language. Eighty-four percent reported English as their native language (n=84), whereas 16% identified themselves as non-native speakers of English (n=16). Regression analyses indicated no significant differences in subsequent questions related to whether or not respondents were native English speakers. After providing demographic data, participants were asked questions about their advisors and departments. Regression analyses indicated no significant differences related to the respondents’ schools/colleges.

Department and Advisor

In part two, the survey questioned individuals about their departments and advisors. About 60% of respondents reported that their department did not offer graduate classes on academic writing (59.6%; n=31). Additionally, 69.6% of students reported they did not meet at least once a month with their advisor for writing (n=64), 83.5% had not co-authored papers with their advisor (n=76), and 62.7% did not share their writing with their advisor on a regular basis (n=52; see Figure 6). Approximately 51% indicated they learned about the writing expectations of their department by reading dissertations and theses that members of their committee have chaired (n=41). However, students rated their department positively overall, with 89.9% reporting that they felt their department valued their development as an academic writer (n=71), and 87.1% reporting that their advisor valued their development as an academic writer (n=61). Also, 98.6% of participants felt their advisor was a good writer (n=73), 87.2% learned a lot about academic writing from their advisor’s feedback (n=68), and 72% reported that their graduate director communicates with the students about resources for academic writing (n=54; see Figure 7). Furthermore, 89.7% of respondents understood their advisor’s feedback (n=70), 88.5% found the feedback helpful in revising their academic writing (n=69), and 88.8% were comfortable discussing their advisor’s feedback with them (n=71; see Figure 7).

Writing Beliefs, Practices, and Help-Seeking Behaviors

In part three of the survey, individuals were asked about their writing beliefs, practices, and help-seeking behaviors. Unsurprisingly, 97.9% reported that writing well was an important component of their success as a researcher (n=93), 90% noted they thought carefully about what others said about their academic writing (n=81), and 83.5% reported that they acknowledged the need to be a good writer to be a good researcher (n=81). When asked if the dissertation represented the beginning of their career as a researcher, 61.1% agreed (n=44), 38.9% disagreed (n=16), and three did not answer. The preference to work alone on their academic writing was split almost equally with 51.7% preferring companionship (n=46) and 48.3% preferring solitude (n=43).

Notably, 54.3% of participants’ advisors recommended the Writing Center to them (n=44), yet 26.3% of respondents reported discomfort seeking help with their academic writing (n=25) and 22.2% reported they did not have time to seek support for their academic writing (n=20). Understandably, 62% of participants reported they struggled to find time to write (n=57), and 63.3% of participants admitted they did not set aside time to write at least twice a week (n=56). When asked if they had attempted to write an article in one sitting, 38.6% reported that they did (n=32), and 61.4% reported that they did not (n=51). Regardless, 95.7% acknowledged they would continue to write in their professional life (n=89), and 84.9% acknowledged that people in their field cared about writing quality (n=79).

Results of binary logistic regressions indicated that graduate students were more likely to ask for feedback from the writing center if their advisors were non-native English speakers and writers (X2(1)= 6.433, p<.05, R2= .100; seven advisors were non-native English speakers/writers); were too busy to help with academic writing (X2(1)= 5.144, p<.05, R2= .104); or expected their students to get all of their help from the writing center (X2(1)= 5.092, p<.05, R2= .105). Additionally, whether the department offered graduate classes on academic writing predicted whether graduate students had a consultation (X2(1)= 4.803, p<.05, R2= .124).

Our Programming

In the subsequent sections, respondents were asked about their experiences with writing center consultations, workshops, and SDW!, OU’s recurring monthly dissertation retreat. While many students acknowledged being encouraged to attend a writing center consultation or program, only 31% of respondents did so (n=31). Of these, 17% attended a workshop sponsored by the writing center (n=17), and 16% attended a SDW! session (n=16; see Figure 9). Of the 31 individuals who made a consultation appointment, nine individuals visited only once, leaving 22 who attended more than once. Interestingly, of those workshops attended, the most cited was avoiding unintentional plagiarism (n=7), and the most frequently requested workshop addressed statistical consulting (n=9). While the survey did not exhibit high levels of participation in SDW!, 75% of those who did attend selected “agree” or “strongly agree” that attending had changed how they scheduled their writing (n=12). Furthermore, 81.3% felt more productive after attending (n=13), and 93.8% reported that attending increased their personal writing accountability (n=15; see Figure 10). When asked about the changes they experienced post-program attendance, 87.6% of participants “agreed” (n=7) or “strongly agreed” (n=7) that they experienced enhanced focus and concentration by cutting down on interruptions, and 81.3% of participants “agreed” (n=7) or “strongly agreed” (n=6) that they perceived an improvement in their work or study process (see Figure 10).

Several additional questions predicted whether the graduate student attended a workshop or SDW!. Those students whose advisors were too busy to help with writing (X2(1)= 4.715, p<.05, R2= .110) or whose advisors recommended the writing center (X2(1)= 6.313, p<.05, R2= .128) were more likely to attend a workshop. Interestingly, graduate students who felt that their department did not value their development as academic writers were more likely to attend a workshop (X2(1)= 9.328, p<.01, R2= .182) and SDW! (X2(1)= 10.070, p<.01, R2= .202). Those students whose departments neither offer graduate classes on academic writing (X2(1)= 4.950, p<.05, R2= .134) nor thesis/dissertation workshops (X2(1)= 6.518, p<.05, R2= .169) were more likely to attend a SDW! session. Unsurprisingly, graduate students who preferred not to work alone were more likely to attend a SDW! session (X2(1)= 4.428, p<.05, R2= .080).

Client Narrative Feedback

While analysis of the survey data provided us with useful findings about graduate students’ writing beliefs, practices, and help-seeking behaviors (the primary research questions), graduate writers who use our campus writing center, particularly multilingual and international graduate students, were not well represented in the respondent pool. We therefore turned to existing writing center data to gain a more complete understanding of writing center users’ perceptions of our services (secondary research focus). More specifically, the two graduate researchers pulled narrative comments relevant to our survey query from 21 distinct surveys conducted with graduate students who attended SDW! and workshops between 2017 and 2021. Then, the team coded the responses for (1) a priori survey codes—writing beliefs, practices, help-seeking—as well as (2) users’ perceptions of the writing center support services they had used. In the next section, we share selected narrative comments that offer readers a better understanding of the roles graduate student users have ascribed to the writing center.

Consultation Narratives

Since many SDW! and workshop attendees also had attended one-on-one writing center consultations—as confirmed by the survey data—we were able to gain insight into their experiences with and attitudes about the role of these sessions in helping them meet their writing goals. When asked if they would recommend the writing center’s consultations, participants had much to say about the value of the service and also about how these sessions affected their subsequent practice and overall completion, as demonstrated by the following comments:

They understand our workload. They offer patience and understanding of the writing process. They believe in students, specifically the Director does, Sherry Wynn Purdue. They know how to challenge us and get to know our writing style to see us follow through and improve. Without Sherry... I would have not finished my PhD.

Yes. I wish I would have used this service more throughout my time at OU. Red helped make me aware of writing patterns. Sherry helped me to put to practice better writing strategies.

The international voices that were less represented in our survey data were plentiful in these narratives. These multilingual writers spoke not only of assistance on their theses and dissertations, but also about the help they received for articles and resumes, particularly in terms of audience:

Thank you for your careful and great help in revising my article. It allowed me, a foreigner, to find a way to revise my article.

Yes, I have recommended the writing center services especially to international students like me who are non-native English speakers. Also I encourage my peers to get help from the writing center on resume building. Since I'm a non-citizen, the OUWC resume building consultation helped me tailor my resume for job applications in the USA.

Support for students who are not English speakers is instrumental right from the beginning of their graduate studies. There is a lot of potential, but due to fear of embarrassment they might not come forward to acknowledge they need help with their writing. Breaking down in small steps the whole dissertation process could be a life saver for students [like me].

We close this section with a comment from a writer who acknowledged the role of seeking additional perspective, an insight demonstrating the importance of gaining a second set of eyes and ears despite writing stage or experience:

Yes, definitely. I think it is a great resource not only to help people stuck at a point but also for people who have been writing long, just to offer more perspective on how to make the writing good and comprehensive.

Retreat Narratives

When participants were asked if they had recommended SDW! to people inside their program, we received the following answers that demonstrated their understanding of the importance of accountability and a community that interrupts the isolation of writing alone:

I have had difficulty finding a good place to write where I can focus and keep myself going. I'm looking for accountability and like-mindedness in  the writing process. 

I constantly promote SDW! to other colleagues in my department. Some people prefer to work on their writing alone, and I get that, but having that accountability is key for me.

Yes, it is a great way to dedicate time to writing and be held accountable.

I have been described as a strong writer by professors thus far in the process. I have struggled with maintaining focus as I write the dissertation...through these opportunities, I can organize and focus better to work towards finishing my dissertation.

These statements support our survey results on the magnitude of accountability and authority in dissertation success, but we must acknowledge that our survey results indicated 48% of our sample preferred to work alone. Thus, our SDW! meets needs for many graduate students, but not all.

Sometimes clients go as far to reinforce their survey responses by sending a personal message to the director by email. One such message encapsulates what we’ve heard from many writers over the years to varying degrees:

Hey Sherry! I finally got my thesis done, defended, and fully ready to print! I think you mentioned being interested in reading it so I thought I would share it. (you don't have to of course!) But I also wanted to thank you for helping me. I'm really not sure I would have done it without those sit down  and write days. So really, thank you! I owe you a ton!

It is worth noting that this writer not only attended our writing retreat, but also replicated it for graduate students in his department!

Narrative feedback about how our services met departmental gaps

In several of the previously distributed surveys from which we gathered narrative feedback, graduate student writers were invited to share anything about their experience they would like us to know. We found overwhelming narrative evidence that students’ perceived awareness of the writing-support gap between themselves and their department was mitigated by OUWC graduate programming, further support for our quantitative findings.

I assumed, likely wrongly, that we would receive writing instruction in my phd program. We do get helpful feedback, but I would like more specific writing instruction to develop my scholarly voice.

I learned from my own experiences that a doctoral student must regularly meet and report writing progress to the dissertation chair so that he/she can receive feedback and advise promptly. 

Writing to me is one of the most important parts of our research. The work that we do in the lab, no matter how good, doesn’t get out there until you’re able to communicate it efficiently. I’d love to learn to avoid making mistakes in writing as those can be very frustrating.

It is challenging to find the time to write but I do like the doctoral support meetings that take place  once a month to help with keeping me on track.

I am grateful that the Writing Center is offering such great help to graduate students. I believe these activities will help me get my dissertation done successfully. 

I was fully prepared to complete a qualitative study independently. I could NOT have completed a quantitative study independently. A statistic[s] course should be added to the curriculum. 

I am pleased by the resources available expressly for graduate students and aspiring faculty.

Graduate student narrative feedback helped paint a more holistic picture of graduate students' writing practices, beliefs, and help-seeking behaviors. Key to a mixed-methods approach is the assumption that there are multiple ways to legitimately approach inquiry and that using several approaches avoids the partiality of using merely one. Turning to qualitative data from existing writing center sources helped us fill gaps and triangulate our quantitative findings and added to our understanding of international and multilingual graduate students’ specific thoughts and feelings about graduate level writing.

Discussions and conclusions

This project is an initial step toward better understanding the writing beliefs, practices, and behaviors of the graduate student population at OU. Despite a comparatively small sample size, we nevertheless received significant and important feedback. Our goal with this publication is to continue providing empirical evidence for these resources, including SDW!, Dissertation 101 workshops, and graduate writing consultations. We seek to move beyond the implementation of resources by researching the efficacy of our programs, including but not limited to our writing retreats, one-on-one consulting, workshops, and statistical consulting, and informing our future decisions. Our subsequent goal is that through this publication, other institutions may benefit from our description of these services, particularly the importance of providing graduate writing support and other educational opportunities. Students not only benefit from these services during their time at OU, but also they acknowledge the pivotal role the writing center played in their success in publications, theses, and dissertation completions.

Delving into our robust findings, we found that gender was a significant predictor. Respondents who identified as female were more likely to have a writing consultation than those identifying as male. However, this is likely significant as there are more females than males within our sample and within the graduate school population. Additional significant results included that graduate students were more likely to come to the OU Writing Center if they felt their departments and advisors were under-supportive. However, it is unclear if graduate student respondents were aware of what mentoring was supposed to entail. In comparing Figures 6 and 7, it can be concluded that students believe in their advisor’s feedback and believe that their advisors are supporting them, yet they do not meet on a regular basis, publish papers, or share their academic writing with their advisors. Thus, we suspect that graduate students may be aware of what apt advisor mentorship is, let alone of its importance to their careers. As such, we further suspect that graduate students initially stumble into, or subconsciously seek out, OUWC assistance because they are not aware of their advisor’s and their department’s limited resources. This is evidenced by the graduate students' admittance to not spending sufficient time on their academic writing or attending the free academic writing support sessions provided to them by the OUWC. Additional support was found in the client narrative feedback; those students who had used the OUWC found not only camaraderie and support, but also encouragement on how to effectively communicate with their departments and advisors.

While we suspect that graduate students may not be well-informed about the roles advisors could play and the resources they could be receiving, our research is limited in these intuitions. Fortunately, students who participated in this survey and in OUWC programming stated that they benefited enormously from our variety of services. Within the quantitative sections, we received immensely positive support in the form of “strongly agree” or “agree” when asked if SDW! or the Dissertation 101 workshops enhanced focus, increased accountability and improved productivity. Our client feedback paints a more enthusiastic and holistic picture of our services as students state they would not have been able to complete their degree without the assistance we provided. Thus, though our Qualtrics™ survey lacked in number of responses, we know through our additional surveys and emails the efficacies of our programming as well as its faults. While mentioned only briefly, the COVID-19 pandemic shifted classes and writing center appointments online, stunting the growth of our programs. Burnout among students and staff in virtual life was high, and we experienced record low turnout rates for appointments, workshops, SDW! and survey responses. However, the shift online allowed us to discover new clients who are only able to receive the support virtually. With these factors in mind, we will focus on accommodating differently-abled populations as we revise existing programs and create new ones. We are hopeful-emboldened by fall 2022 numbers—that  our participation rates will grow and that our programs will evolve to meet the ongoing and emergent needs of our graduate writers.

Graduate education is ever-changing and thus, writing center resources require our innovation and flexibility. Our writing center services continue to grow and evolve with our students and campus needs. We seek to enlighten not only the readers of this journal, but the graduate population and departments of the problematic writing-support gap. Through collaboration on campus, we hope to bridge this gap and assist graduate students in their writing and disciplinary identity.

Limitations and Future Directions

It is important to consider the limitations of this study. First, generalizing the findings should be done with caution due to a small sample size that was disproportionately comprised of females. Second, while students admitted to the value of their academic writing to their dissertation and their career, and acknowledged their advisor’s support, strengths, and weaknesses, there was a mismatch in what they perceived as supportive and what they actually received in terms of material support. While we do believe that this is an interesting finding, it is also a limitation because it is based on both the researchers’ and students’ perceptions. Furthermore, it is worth noting that data was collected via self-reported questionnaire therefore subjecting it to social desirability bias, meaning participants may have responded in a way that is perceived as socially acceptable rather than accurate. Additionally, while some prior research has examined such sociocultural differences in relationship to issues like academic help seeking behavior, most of it has focused on undergraduate students and the results are inconclusive (Martín-Arbós); thus future research should seek to investigate the help-seeking behaviors of graduate students of different cultures, especially for students who come from cultures that do not have the same resources, stigmatize help-seeking or peer assistance, or perceive the reception of help as a weakness (Tung). In forthcoming research on this topic, we hope to deepen our understanding of graduate student support within and between departments, expound upon our initial findings, and garner a more thorough understanding of graduate students’ help-seeking behaviors, writing beliefs, and practices.

Works cited

Acker, Sandra. “The Hidden Curriculum of Dissertation Advising.” The Hidden Curriculum in Higher Education, edited by Eric Margolis, Routledge, 2001.

Agu, Ngozi, and Christy O. Odimegwu. “Doctoral Dissertation Supervision: Identification and Evaluation of Models.” Education Research International, 2014, pp. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/790750

Aitchison, Claire, and Cally Guerin, eds. Writing Groups for Doctoral Students and Beyond: Innovations in Practice and Theory. Routledge, 2014.

Amundsen, Cheryl, and Lynn McAlpine. “'Learning Supervision': Trial by Fire.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International, vol. 46, no. 3, 2009, pp. 331–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290903068805

Babcock, Rebecca Day, and Terese Thonus. Researching the Writing Center: Towards an Evidence-Based Practice. Peter Lang, 2012.

Bazerman, Charles. “Genre and Cognitive Development: Beyond Writing to Learn.” Genre in a Changing World, edited by Charles Bazerman, Adair Bonini, and Débora Figueiredo, The WAC Clearinghouse, 2009. https://wac.colostate.edu/books/perspectives/genre/

Bazerman, Charles, and Paul Prior. “Participating in Emergent Socio-Literate Worlds: Genre, Disciplinarity, Interdisciplinarity.” Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Literacy Research (2nd ed.), edited by Richard Beach, Judith Green, Michael Kamil, and Timothy Shanahan, Hampton Press, 2005, pp. 133-178.

Bitchener, John, et al. “The Focus of Supervisor Written Feedback to Thesis/Dissertation Students.” International Journal of English Studies, vol. 10, no. 2, 2010, pp. 79-97.

Blessinger, Patrick, and Denise Stockley. "Emerging Directions in Doctoral Education." Emerging Directions in Doctoral Education (Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Vol. 6), edited by Patrick Blessinger and Denise Stockley, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2055-364120160000006008

Bøgelund, Pia. “How Supervisors Perceive PhD Supervision – And How They Practice It.” International Journal of Doctoral Studies, vol. 10, 2016, pp. 39-55. http://ijds.org/Volume10/IJDSv10p039-055Bogelund0714.pdf

Brooks-Gillies, Marilee, et al., eds. Graduate Writing Across the Disciplines: Identifying, Teaching, and Supporting. The WAC Clearinghouse; University Press of Colorado, 2020. https://doi.org/10.37514/ATD-B.2020.0407

Caffarella, Rosemary S., and Bruce G. Barnett. “Teaching Doctoral Students to Become Scholarly Writers: The Importance of Giving and Receiving Critiques.” Studies in Higher Education, vol. 25, no. 1, 2000, pp. 39-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/030750700116000

Calarco, Jessica. A Field Guide to Graduate School: Uncovering the Hidden Curriculum, Princeton University Press, 2020.

Can, Gulfidan, and Andrew Walker. “A Model for Doctoral Students’ Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Written Feedback for Academic Writing.” Research in Higher Education, vol. 52, 2011, pp. 508-536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-010-9204-1

Carter-Veale, Wendy Y., et al. “The Dissertation House Model: Doctoral Student Experiences Coping and Writing in a Shared Knowledge Community.” CBE--Life Sciences Education, vol 15, no. 3, fall 2016, pp. 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0081

Council of Graduate Schools. Ph.D Completion and Attrition: Policies and Practices to Promote Student Success, 2010.

Creswell, John W., and Vicki L. Plano-Clark. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. SAGE Publications, 2007.

Dickson‐Swift, Virginia, et al. A non‐residential alternative to off campus writers’ retreats for academics, Journal of Further and Higher Education, vol. 33, no. 3, 2009, pp. 229-239. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098770903026156

DiPierro, Marianne. “Excellence in Doctoral Education: Defining Best Practices.” College Student Journal, vol. 41, no. 2, 2007, pp. 368-375.

Driscoll, Dana, and Sherry Wynn Perdue. “Theory, Lore, and More: An analysis of RAD Research in The Writing Center Journal, 1980-2009.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 32, no. 2, 2012, pp. 11-39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43442391

Gaillet, Lynee L. “Designing a Graduate Seminar in Academic Writing.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication (47th, Milwaukee, WI, March 27-30, 1996).

Gardner, Susan K. “Student and Faculty Attributions of Attrition in High and Low-Completing Doctoral Programs in the United States.” Higher Education, vol. 58, no. 1, 2008, pp. 97-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9184-7

Gillespie, Paula. “Graduate Writing Consultants for Ph.D. Programs Part 1: Using What we Know: Networking and Planning.” Writing Lab Newsletter, vol. 32, no. 2, 2007, pp. 1-6.

González-Ocampo, Gabriela, and Montserrat Castelló. “How Doctoral Students Experience Supervision?” Studies in Continuing Education, vol. 41, no. 3, 2019, pp. 293-307. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2018.1520208

Grant, Barbara M. “Writing in the Company of Other Women: Exceeding the Boundaries.” Studies in Higher Education, vol. 31, no. 4, 2006, pp. 483-495. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600800624

Halse, Christine, and Janne Malfroy. “Retheorizing Doctoral Supervision as Professional Work.” Studies in Higher Education, vol. 35, no. 1, 2010, pp. 79-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070902906798  

Harding-DeKam, Jenni L., et al. “The Hidden Curriculum of Doctoral Advising.” NACADA Journal, vol. 32, no. 2, fall 2012, pp. 5-16.

Kamler, Barbara, and Pat Thomson. Helping Doctoral Students Write: Pedagogies for Supervision. New York: Routledge, 2014.

Kent, Julia. Graduate Schools Report Strong Growth in First-Time Enrollment of Underrepresented Minorities. Council of Graduate Schools, 2016.

Kiley, Margaret. Identifying Threshold Concepts and Proposing Strategies to Support Doctoral Candidates. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, vol. 46, no. 3, 2009, pp. 293-304. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290903069001

Kiley, Margaret, and Gina Wisker. Threshold Concepts in Research Education and Evidence of Threshold Crossing. Higher Education Research & Development, vol. 28, no. 4, 2009, pp. 431-441. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360903067930

Kornhaber, Rachel, et al. “The Benefits and Challenges of Academic Writing Retreats: An Integrative Review.” Higher Education Research and Development, vol. 35, no. 6, 2016, pp. 1210-1227. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1144572

Kumar, Vijay, and Elke Stracke. “An Analysis of Written Feedback on a PhD Thesis.” Teaching in Higher Education, vol. 12, no. 4, 2007, pp. 461-470. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510701415433

Lawrence, Susan, and Terry Myers Zawacki, eds. Re/Writing the Center: Approaches to Supporting Graduate Students in the Writing Center. Utah State University Press, 2018.

Lee, Anne. “How Are Doctoral Students Supervised? Concepts of Doctoral Research Supervision.” Studies in Higher Education, vol 33, no. 3, 2008, pp. 267-281. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802049202

Lee, Sohui, and Chris Golde. “Completing the Dissertation and Beyond: Writing Centers and Dissertation Boot Camps.” The Writing Lab Newsletter, vol. 37, no. 7/8, 2013, pp. 1-5. https://wlnjournal.org/archives/v37/37.7-8.pdf

Lovitts, Barbara E. “How to Grade a Dissertation.” Academe, vol. 91, no. 6, 2005, pp. 18-23.

McAlpine, Lynn, and Cheryl Amundsen. “To Be or Not to Be? The Challenges of Learning Academic Work.” Doctoral Education: Research-Based Strategies for Doctoral Students, Supervisors and Administrators, edited by Lynn McAlpine and Cheryl Amundsen, Springer Science, 2011. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789400705067

Madden, Shannon.  “Introduction: Access as Praxis for Graduate Writing.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 14, no. 1, 2016. http://www.praxisuwc.com/madden-introduction

Madden, Shannon, et al., eds. Learning from the Lived Experiences of Graduate Student Writers. Utah State University Press, 2020.

Madden, Shannon, and Jerry Stinnett. Part III: “Empowering Graduate Student Writers and Rejecting Outsources Mentorship.” WCJ Blog. 7 July 2016. http://www.writingcenterjournal.org/new-blog//empowering-graduate-student-writers-and-rejecting-outsourced-mentorship

Mannon, Bethany O. What Do Graduate Students Want from the Writing Center? Tutoring Practices to Support Dissertation and Thesis Writers. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 13, no. 2, 2016, pp. 59-64.

Martín-Arbós, Sergi., et al. Help-Seeking in an Academic Context: A Systematic Review. Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 4460, 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084460

Mullen, Carol A. “Best Writing Practices for Graduate Students: Reducing the Discomfort of the Blank Screen.” Kappa Delta Pi Record, vol. 43, no. 1, fall 2006, pp. 30-35. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1066715.pdf

Murray, Rowena, and Mary Newton. “Writing Retreat as Structured Interventions: Margin or Mainstream?” Higher Education Research and Development, vol. 28, no. 5, 2009, pp. 541-553. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360903154126

Nowacek, Rebecca S., and Bradley Hughes. Threshold Concepts in the Writing Center: Scaffolding the Development of Tutor Expertise edited by Linda Adler-Kassner and Elizabeth Wardle, University Press of Colorado, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ett15nmjt7.19

Orellana, Matha L., et al. Improving Doctoral Success by Matching PhD Students with Supervisors. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, vol. 11, 2016, pp. 87-103. http://ijds.org/Volume11/IJDSv11p087-103Orellana1629.pdf

Paltridge, Brian. “Writing Retreats as Writing Pedagogy.” Writing & Pedagogy, vol. 8, no. 1, 2016, pp. 199-213. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v8i1.27634

Papen, Uta, and Virginie Theriault. “Writing Retreats as a Milestone in the Development of PhD Students’ Sense of Self as Academic Writers.” Studies in Con. Ed., vol. 40, no. 2, 2018, pp. 166-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2017.1396973

Paré, Anthony. “Speaking of Writing: Supervisory Feedback and the Dissertation,” Doctoral Education: Research-based Strategies for Doctoral Students, Supervisors, and Administrators, edited by Lynn McAlpine and Cheryl Amundsen. Springer, 2011, pp. 59-74.

Paré, Anthony, et al. “The Dissertation as Multi-Genre: Many Readers, Many Readings.” Genre in a Changing World, edited by Charles Bazerman, Adair Bonini, and Débora Figueiredo, The WAC Clearinghouse, 2009, pp. 183-197. https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/books/genre/chapter9.pdf

___. “Knowledge and Identity Work in the Supervision of Doctoral Student Writing: Shaping Rhetorical Subjects.” Writing in Knowledge Societies, edited by Doreen Starke-Meyerring, Anthony Paré, Natasha Artemeva, Miriam Horne, and Larissa Yousoubova, 2011, pp. 215-236. https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/books/winks/chapter11.pdf

Peelo, Moira T. Understanding Supervision and the PhD. Continuum, 2011.

Phillips, Tallin. “Graduate Writing Groups: Shaping Writing and Writers from Student to Scholar.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 10, no. 1, 2012. https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/62144

Phillips, Tallin. “Writing Center Support for Graduate Students: An Integrated Model.” In S. Simpson, N.A. Caplan, M. Cox, & T. Phillips (Eds.). Supporting Graduate Student Writers: Research, Curriculum, & Program Design, edited by Steve Simpson, Nigel A. Caplan, Michelle Cox, and Tallin Phillips. University of Michigan Press, 2016, pp. 159-170.

Powers, Judith K. “Helping the Graduate Thesis Writer through Faculty and Writing Center Collaboration.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication (44th, San Diego, CA, March 31-April 3, 1993), April 1, 1993.

Powers, Judith. “Assisting the Graduate Thesis Writer through Faculty and Writing Center Collaboration.” Writing Lab Newsletter, vol. 20, no. 2, 1995, pp. 13-16.  

Rose, Mike, and Karen A. McClafferty. “A Call for the Teaching of Writing in Graduate Education.” Educational Researcher, vol. 30, no. 2, 2001, pp. 27-33.

Schoonenboom, Judith, and R. Burke Johnson. “How to Construct a Mixed Methods Research Design.” Kolner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, vol. 69, Suppl 2, 2017, pp. 107-131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-017-0454-1  

Smallwood, Scott.  “Doctor Dropout.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, 16 January 2004. ​​https://www.chronicle.com/article/doctor-dropout/?cid2=gen_login_refresh

Starke-Meyerring, Doreen. “Writing Groups as Critical Spaces for Engaging Normalized Institutional Cultures of Writing in Doctoral Education.” Writing Groups for Doctoral Education and Beyond: Innovations in Practice and Theory, edited by Claire Aitchison and Cally Guerin, Routledge, 2014, pp. 65-81.

Stewart, Cyndi. Academic Writing Retreats for Graduate Students: A Qualitative Case Study. 2018. Colorado State U. PhD Dissertation. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2056494434

Summers, Sarah. “The Rise of the Graduate-focused Writing Center: Exigencies and Responses.” Re/Writing the Center: Approaches to Supporting Graduate Students in the Writing Center, edited by Susan Lawrence and Terry Meyers Zawacki, 2018, pp. 49-65.

Switzer, Anne, and Sherry Wynn Perdue. “Dissertation 101: A Research and Writing Intervention for Education Graduate Students.” Education Libraries, vol. 34, no. 1, 2011, pp. 4-13.

Taylor, Stanley E. “Changes in Doctoral Education: Implications for Supervisors in Developing Early Career Researchers.” International Journal for Researcher Development, vol. 3, no. 2, 2012, pp. 118-138. https://doi.org/10.1108/17597511311316973

Thomas, Melissa, et al. “The Graduate Writing Institute: Overcoming Risk, Embracing Strategies, and Appreciating Skills.” The Learning Assistance Review, vol. 19, no. 1, 2014, pp. 69-98. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1034029.pdf

Tremblay-Wragg, Emile, et al. “Writing More, Better, Together: How Writing Retreats Support Graduate Students through Their Journey.” Journal of Further and Higher Education, vol. 45, no. 1, 2020, pp. 95-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2020.1736272

Tung, Wei-Chen, “Acculturative Stress and Help-Seeking Behaviors Among International Students,” Home Health Care Management & Practice, vol. 23, no. 5, 2011, pp. 383-385. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2004.11909755

Wynn Perdue, Sherry. Centering Dissertation Supervision. 2018. Oakland U. PhD Dissertation.

Wynn Perdue, Sherry. “Epilogue: Center-ing Dissertation Supervision: What Was, What Is, and What Can Be.” Re/Writing the Center: Approaches to Supporting Graduate Students in the Writing Center, edited by Susan Lawrence and Terry Meyers Zawacki, Utah State University Press, 2018, pp. 255-262.

Zhou, Enyu, and Janet Gao. Graduate Enrollment and Degrees: 2010-2020. Council of Graduate Schools, 2021. https://cgsnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/CGS_GED20_Report_final_v2-2.pdf

Appendix A 

Graduate Students’ Academic Writing Beliefs, Practices, Support, and Help Seeking Survey

Part I: Questions about You

1. What is your current level of graduate study? 

A. Masters

B. PhD

C. Certificate

D. Non-degree seeking

2. Are you a native speaker of English?

A. Yes

B. No

3. What is your native language?

A. Arabic

B. Chinese

C. French

D. Japanese

E. Korean

F. Polish

G. Portuguese

H. Russian

I. Spanish

J. Other

4. Was your prior degree program conducted in English?

A. Yes

B. No

5. Was your prior degree program conducted in the U.S.?

A. Yes

B. No

6. Do you consider yourself fluent in English? (Check all that apply)

A. Reading

B. Speaking

C. Writing

D. None of the above

7. What is your gender?

A. Male

B. Female

C. I don’t identify as binary

D. Identity Not Listed

E. Prefer not to respond

8. What is your age group?

A. 18-24 years

B. 25 -34 years

C. 35 - 44 years

D. 45 years or more

9. In what OU college/school are you studying?

A. College of Arts and Sciences

B. School of Engineering and Computer Science

C. School of Nursing

D. School of Health Sciences

E. School of Business Administration

F. School of Education and Human Services

10. How are you currently enrolled in your graduate program?

A. Full-Time

B. Part-Time

11. How long have you been in your graduate program at OU?

A. Less than 1 year

B. 1 to 2 years

C. 3 to 4 years

D. 5 to 6 years

E. 7 years or more

Part II: Questions about Your Department and Your Advisor

Please answer the following 'Yes', 'I don't know', 'No', or 'N/A' for Not applicable 

1. Does your department offer graduate classes on academic writing?

2. Does your department offer thesis/dissertation workshops for graduate students?

3. Do you feel your department values your development as an academic writer?

4. Does your graduate director communicate with departmental graduate students about resources for your academic writing?

5. Do you meet at least once a month with your advisor about your academic writing?

6. Do you feel your advisor values your development as a good academic writer?

7. Is your advisor a native speaker and writer of English?

8. Would you characterize your advisor as a good writer?

9. Have you co authored academic papers with your advisor?

Part III: Writing Beliefs, Practice, and Help Seeking Behavior

Please answer the following 'Yes', 'I don't know', 'No', or 'N/A' for Not applicable 

1. Writing well is an important component of my success as a researcher.

2. The dissertation represents the beginning of my career as a researcher.

3. I need to be a good writer to be a good researcher.

4. I will continue to write throughout my professional life

5. People in my field don’t care about writing quality.

6. I struggle to find time to write.

7. I set aside time to write at least two times per week.

8. I wait until after I have completed my research to “write it up.”

9. I attempt to write an article or chapter in one sitting.

10. I regularly reread what I have written and revise it.

11. I share my writing with my advisor on a regular basis.

12. I share my writing with colleagues for input.

13. I think carefully about what others say about my academic writing.

14. I utilize others’ feedback to revise my academic writing.

15. I prefer to work on my academic writing alone.

16. I am uncomfortable seeking help with my academic writing.

17. I don’t have time to seek support for my academic writing.

18. I can identify norms for academic writing in my chosen discipline.

19. I find written guidelines (manuals, examples, advice) on academic writing to be helpful.

20. I notice similarities between my academic writing and articles in journals that I read.

21. Assessment rubrics are helpful to me in understanding the expectations of high-quality academic writing.

22. I plan my academic writing according to the submission requirements of the journals where I submit my work.

23. I learn about the writing expectations of my discipline by reading publications in my field.

24. I learn about the writing expectations of my department by reading dissertations and theses that members of my committee have chaired.

25. Talking about my writing with a tutor is helpful to clarify my academic writing.

26. I learn a lot about academic writing from my advisor’s feedback.

27. I learn a lot about academic writing by reading academic publications in my field.

28. I learn a lot about academic writing from my advisor’s feedback.

29. I learn a lot about academic writing by reading academic publications in my field.

30. I learn a lot about academic writing by collaborating with my advisor on academic publications.

31. My advisor offers explanations for the changes they suggest for my academic work.

32. I understand the feedback my advisor gives me on my academic writing.

33. The writing feedback my advisor gives me helps me to revise my academic writing.

34. I am comfortable asking my advisor to clarify their feedback on my academic writing.

35. My advisor has recommended the Writing Center.

36. My advisor doesn’t want me to seek assistance from the Writing Center.

37. My advisor is too busy to help me with my academic writing.

38. My advisor is unwilling to help me with my academic writing.

39. My advisor expects me to get all my writing help from the Writing Center. 

Part IV: Writing Center Role

Rate the Following as True or False

1. I have asked for feedback on my academic writing from Oakland University Writing Center (OUWC).

2. I have attended a workshop sponsored by the OUWC.

3. I have attended a writing consultation at the OUWC.

4. I have attended a Sit Down and Write! session sponsored by the OUWC. 

Part V: Experience with Writing Center- Workshop

1. Have you attended a workshop at the Oakland University Writing Center?

A. Yes

B. No

2. Please select 'Yes' or 'No' to the following statements

A. I have attended only one workshop at the Writing Center.

B. I have attended several workshops at the Writing Center.

3. Please select the following workshops you would like to see offered/ have attended in the past/ would recommend:

A.  Statistical Consulting

B.  Self-Care

C.  Stakes Documents

D.  Resources for Learning LaTeX

E.  Fair Use and Plagiarism

F.   Avoiding Unintentional Plagiarism

G.  Synthesizing Literature in High Stakes Documents

H.  Documenting, Organizing and Storing Your Research Data

I.   Navigating the IRB and Common Problems

J.  Preparing for the Academic Job Search

K.  Grant Writing

L.  Literature Reviews

Part V: Experience with Writing Center- Consultation

1. Have you attended a consultation at the Oakland University Writing Center?

A.  Yes

B.  No

2. Please rate the following as ‘True’ or ‘False’

A.  I only have attended one consultation at the Writing Center.

B.  I meet regularly with the same consultant(s) at the Writing Center. Please state which consultant.

C.  I only bring my academic writing to the Writing Center for editing.

D.  I have met with the Writing Center director, Dr. Sherry Wynn-Perdue for my writing.

3. Please check the box(es) next to all that apply for you  I have gone to the Writing Center for course assignments

A.  I have gone to the Writing Center for dissertation assistance

B.  I have gone to the Writing Center for publication consulting

C.  I was referred to the Writing Center by

4. Would you recommend Oakland University Writing Center consultations to others? Why, or why not?

Part V: Experience with Writing Center- SDW!

1. Have you attended Sit Down & Write! (SDW!)?

A.    Yes

B.     No

2. In what format have you attended Sit Down & Write (SDW!)?

A.    Face-to-face only

B.     Online only

C.     Both face-to-face and online

3. Which one do you prefer and why?

A.    Face-to-face

B.     Online

C.     Both

D.    No preference

4. How did you learn about SDW!? (Check all that apply)

A.    Email from the Graduate School

B.     Email from the Writing Center

C.     Fellow graduate student

D.    Advisor recommendation

E.    Committee member recommendation

F.     Program Director recommendation

G.    Do not remember

H.    Other

5. Do you attend individually or with a colleague/friend?

A.    Individually

B.     With a colleague/friend

6. How often have you attended SDW!?

A.    Once

B.     2-3 times

C.     4-7 times

D.    8 or more times

7. Please rate the following on a scale of 1-5

A.    Attending SDW! has changed how I schedule my writing

B.     Attending SDW! has changed the way I think about revision

C.     I have learned strategies for overcoming procrastination

D.    I do most of my writing during SDW!

E.    Attending SDW! makes me more accountable to get my writing done

F.     I saw no change in my writing after SDW!

8. What did you do before Sit Down & Write!? Worked with my advisor on my writing

A.    Worked with the Writing Center on my writing

B.     Worked on my own on my writing

C.     Was not productive in working on my own writing

9. Have you recommended SDW! to people inside your program? Why, or why not?

10. Did you find the other students in SDW! helpful to your process?

A.    Yes

B.     No

C.     No difference

11. Did you utilize this at the beginning, middle, end or throughout thesis and dissertation writing?

A.    Beginning

B.     Middle

C.     End

D.    Throughout

12. How do you benefit from Sit Down & Write!, on a scale of 1-5?

A.    I need the physical space to work

B.     Easy to dedicate time once it’s on my calendar

C.     I am more productive after attending

D.    It is the only time I can commit to writing

E.    I see myself as more of a writer

F.     I am encouraged by other graduate students working

G.    I enjoy the free lunch and coffee

13. Please rate the following habits before and after SDW! on a scale of 1-5

A.    Before SDW! I worked on my writing 1-2 times a month

B.     Before SDW! I rarely dedicated days to my writing

C.     Before SDW! I worked on my writing in short sessions of an hour or so here and there

D.    After SDW! I am better at outlining my writing work session

E.    After SDW! I I work on my writing 1-2 times a week

F.     After SDW! My habits remain unchanged

14. Since SD&W, I have felt the following changes on a scale of 1-5 (1- Not at all, 3- Sometimes, 5-Always)

A.    Alleviated writing anxiety

B.     Enhanced focus by cutting down on interruptions

C.     Boosted motivation and confidence to write

D.    Bolstered the determination to achieve my goals

E.    Refined my research process, both in qualitative and quantitative terms

F.     Increased awareness of my writing decisions

G.    Strengthened my determination to keep applying myself in the face of complex situations

H.    Improved my work or study process

Appendix B

Figure 1. Survey Gender Demographics

Figure 2. Survey Age Demographics

Figure 3. Survey Graduate Degree Seeking Representation

Figure 4. Survey Years in Degree Representation

Figure 5. Survey Schools Representation

Figure 6. Percentages of Graduate Student Perceptions of their Advisor’s Involvement

Figure 7. Percentages of Graduate Student Perceptions of their Advisor’s Feedback

Figure 8. Percentages of Writing Beliefs by Advisors & Graduate Students

Figure 9. Percentages of Graduate Student Attendees to OUWC Programming

Figure 10. Acknowledgement and Positive Perceptions of SDW! Sessions