Creative Writing in Higher Education: A Literature Review of the Marketplace Relationship

Abstract

Radical changes in digital technology represent a challenge to the marketplace-resistant discipline of creative writing. Prior to any research being conducted on this issue, one needs to obtain a solid understanding of the issues of those working, studying and teaching in the field. This literature review works within specific parameters to examine the relationship of creative writing in higher education to the marketplace as described in the current scholarship in the field. Although there have been no other studies on this subject, a significant body of research exists on the pedagogy and practices of the creative writer and creative writing in higher education. This examination considers stakeholders’ views, experiences, teaching goals and marketplace theories, along with some empirical investigations. The review draws from Australian, UK and US experiences and practices.

1. Introduction

While a significant body of research exists on the pedagogy and practices of the creative writer and creative writing in higher education, this literature review is unique in focusing on the student’s relationship in creative writing to the marketplace as described in current scholarship by students and educators in the field of creative writing. These stakeholders’ views, experiences and teaching goals along with relevant empirical investigations are examined.

The importance of considering this specific context can be understood by considering the core debate of social science research and that is the struggle between agency and structure. Therefore, in the creative writing context, the student is not autonomous in their academic environment [1]. From this perspective, if context influences a student’s conception, the environment the student works within at the university therefore must inform the student’s relationship to the marketplace. This is of particular significance, as the digital world offers marketplace opportunities not previously available to the creative writer.

This review covers the past 30 years. The most significant reason for choosing this timeframe is that the digital age has had a visible effect on the field of creative writing during this period, and there has been a large amount of discussion around the issue of the marketplace. The establishment in 1996 of the Australasian Association of Writing Programs (AAWP) TEXT: Journal of Writing and Writing Courses as an online resource demonstrates one case of the impact on the field. By 2013, Kohler [2], in the United States, provided a view of the field in relationship to digital developments and suggests categories for organising the digital component of the field. Covid has also had a radical impact on teaching as well as digital publishing. Conducting the review during this timeframe creates a snapshot of the shift in the discussion about the marketplace relationship.

The review begins with a description of the methodology used to locate relevant works. The relevant literature is then examined and discussed.

2. Methodology

To find the literature, I systematically searched OneSearch and EBSCOhost for peer-reviewed articles, journals and books in the field. I also searched JSTOR and Project Muse. Journals that focused on pedagogy were most useful. TEXT: Journal of Writing and Writing Courses and New Writing: The International Journal for the Practice and Theory of Creative Writing yielded the most significant amounts of relevant information in single locations. In addition, searches were performed through Google and Google Scholar. The ‘snowball’ method was also used to locate pertinent articles by drawing from citations in recent works. The key to managing the large amount of material was to keep the focus on the research question (i.e. What is the relationship of the student in creative writing to the marketplace?). Slight variations of words and phrases produced relevant literature. The situation was complicated to examine. For example, there are different expectations for different study levels, different countries have different approaches, as do different institutions, individual educators and students. Therefore, some literature and studies may have been missed or were not included.

In addition, I drew from a discussion in a private Facebook group that focused on pedagogy in the field. Occasionally, news articles were used. This method of searching may demonstrate a bias towards open-source journals and may also create a bias towards a particular country. The cases that emerged focus on the Australian, UK and US contexts.

After gathering the literature, I coded and sorted to create a conceptual schema. For more on this method, see [3]. What emerged is an overview of the relationship from a range of voices in the field. I recognise that pedagogical approaches change over time, and I have attempted to organise ideas in a time-linear fashion. However, I have made exceptions to emphasise points and because some studies occur over a period of years.

3. Students’ views

Although there is not a large body of empirical research on student expectations about, and conceptions of, creative writing in higher education [4, 5], there are reports and surveys that demonstrate some of the views of students and their experiences of the marketplace and their training. In 1998, a report by Evans and Deller-Evans [6], on their survey of Australian undergraduate and postgraduate creative writing students, showed a difference between undergraduate and postgraduate goals. Postgraduate students had ‘more specific, craft related hopes such as developing their skills and improving their prospects for publication’ [6]. Postgraduate (MA) students expected that they would be ‘stretching themselves to the maximum, publishing their work, completing first full-length work within the course, boosting confidence, continuing on to a PhD when possible’ [6]. In assessing the study, Kroll [7] determines that some students expect to be paid for their passion. To learn about their reasons for enrolment, Kroll [8] canvassed a small group of students. Her findings show a publishing and a market-focused interest.

Some express concern about postgraduate-level students achieving marketplace outcomes. Hayes [9] indicates there is little discussion or concrete preparation provided to students about the marketplace. In searching for a writing career and publication outcomes, Hayes travelled from Australia to America on a Churchill Fellowship to discover what practical preparation was being offered to students. She found that none of the faculty anticipated writing careers or publication outcomes for their students, and there was little professional guidance. However, Jeremijenko [10] reports that when a student is offered a marketplace-focused experience, the opportunity is appreciated. Jeremijenko travelled from Australia to the United States to examine the MFA experience. She found that the training she received in market preparation to be the most valuable lesson. Neave [11] provides another view of the US situation. In her 2002–2003 student experience as an MFA student, Neave reports relishing the literary market-focused experience. She argues that US programmes do focus towards the publishing industry, with efforts made to support the student in building relationships with agents, publishers and publishing writers. However, Neave concludes that a market focus for creative writing programmes may never happen because their forte is theory and practice. The relationship of marketplace outcomes to assessment is a concern to McKenzie [12], an Australian postgraduate student, who questions if success in the marketplace is being used to determine creative ability. While recognising the liminal nature of the relationship, McKenzie emphasises that assessment sways the outcomes of work being produced within programmes. In the UK context, an MA student in 2007 offered a student’s view on the likelihood of making a living in the marketplace as a published writer stating that while some are dreamers aiming for big-fame writing careers, he was not willing to quit his main job [13]. Perhaps some hold both views. Wright [13] concludes from the interviews with students that they want success but know it comes from hard work. They want support and contacts and will pay for quality service.

A large 2009 survey [14] of Australian undergraduates in creative writing programmes sought to learn the reasons for student interest in creative writing, literary writing and literary publishing and concluded there is a lot of interest in reading, publishing and obtaining advice about publishing, but this did not apply to all students. The interpretation of the findings was that students value training and skills gained through study, apart from their interest in literary writing. In further discussion, Brook [15] cautions that the study was small, and therefore, conclusions are hard to draw. Neave’s [16] assessment of the report recognises the limitations of the research but finds that some students’ views of creative writing programmes are in conflict with what researchers and those in the field value.

The UK-based National Association of Writers in Education (NAWE) provides more insight from students in a collection of case studies that give students’ perspectives of their experiences and outcomes. The case studies are commissioned narratives by students of their experiences studying creative writing in the UK context. There are two components to the NAWE study: ‘Studying Writing’ [17] presents life as a creative writing student, while ‘Life after graduation’ [18] has the same contributors reflecting on the past and reporting on their post-graduation experiences. The students described a range of experiences. These graduates are now freelance writers, journalists and teachers. Some are pursuing advanced study. The advice from many of these graduates to aspiring writers is not to give up the day job and to be willing to make compromises. Others hold the belief that this is a realistic view of student experience that takes the focus off the star outcome that some universities and departments use for marketing and advertising publications [19].

In a qualitative study on student learning in creative writing courses in the United Kingdom, Light [5] examines both undergraduate and master’s level education. The study focused on 40 students’ perspectives of creative writing compared with other academic writing. Light refers to the work of Lea and Street [20] and concludes that student writing issues might be due to differences in academic versus student expectations. The final phase of Light’s study considers students’ general conceptions of their experience of writing in the higher education context. In addition to other questions, he asked for general views of creative writing, and some of the responses touched on marketplace and audience issues.

From these few studies and limited accounts, it seems that, regardless of other motivations for being in a creative writing programme, students at various levels do want to find a marketplace and publish. Some appear to become aware of the challenges to publish and adjust their expectations accordingly.

4. Teachers’ perspectives

The teachers’ perspectives of students’ views provide additional insight into the complex relationship. The teachers expressed concern that students had illusions regarding publishing and marketplace expectations. In 1994, Haake [21] argued that these marketplace misconceptions are encouraged by American creative writing programmes and are problematic, particularly at the postgraduate level. In 1998, in Australia, Kroll [8] expressed concern for students who want writing careers. She contends that, although most undergraduates do not expect to make money from writing, a few do expect to make money but have no plans on how to achieve this outcome.

Other researchers contend that students are undertaking creative writing courses for non-financial reasons. In a 2000 interview with Brien [22], Gutkind argued that students cannot explain why they are studying. In 2007, in the Australian context, Krauth and Webb [23] emphasised that more students are entering programmes to learn how to write, not to be published authors. Yet, in 2010, in the United Kingdom, Roe [24] contended that being published is the goal for students at the BA and MA level. They want to write and publish novels even if that outcome is a massive challenge. In the same year in the United States, Moxley [25] contended students want success, but most will fail to achieve that outcome.

The view of ambitious students fits with student expectations described by Chapman [26]. He argues that many students seek to publish and make money. However, Chapman does not conclude that the students will fail. Chapman claims that the relationship of creative writing in higher education and aiming for the mass market can work, and it’s what students want.

Chapman sees no reason why mass market and literary work cannot both be taught. This view challenges Haake’s [21] concern expressed 20 years earlier of false expectations. Chapman’s approach requires authors to examine their aesthetic and question their goals. He states that there still is no quick fix. Rather than perceiving the outcome as failure, this perspective has the student committing to the reality of a long journey to reach a marketplace outcome.

The only empirical study in which teachers’ views of students were included was conducted in the United Kingdom. Munden [27] investigates the changing nature of creative writing at 27 universities over the previous 10 years and considers the future of creative writing. Although the marketplace relationship is not the direct focus of his research, the study does offer some insights on this matter. For example, teachers report that student expectations do not align with what is being taught and what teachers can actually do offer to students. The study shows that publishing outcomes do ultimately matter to some in the university, but there is no clarification as to whether or in what way, students are supported to be entrepreneurial or supported in finding marketplace outcomes.

There are other findings in the report from which conclusions might be drawn. The view that students are keen for visiting and published writer interaction could indicate that students are seeking role models, both in creative and academic publishing. Additionally, the study reports that students believe a degree will lead to employment or a published work, but teachers say they do not imply such outcomes when they teach. This discrepancy raises the question as to whether it represents a failure of the programmes. However, it hardly seems a failure in that creative writing programmes continue to enrol and retain students. Alternatively, the issue may be that students’ expectations of reaching the marketplace (i.e. being published) are not the goals of the educators, as Munden’s [27] study might indicate. Arguably students should be more selective when choosing creative writing programmes. The issue of selectivity is significant enough to motivate Earnshaw [28] to develop The handbook of creative writing. Earnshaw argues that there is no one standard for creative writing programmes, and he aims to help students navigate the path. A few universities do offer publishing-focused programmes [29]. However, this is not common for most creative writing programmes.

More questions were raised in 2016 about students’ views of the marketplace relationship in Creative Writing Pedagogy [30], a private group on Facebook comprised primarily of creative writing instructors in higher education. Anna Leahy and Stephanie Vanderslice, both leaders in the field in the United States, manage the forum. The conversations offer a useful insight into current views and approaches to pedagogy. In this discussion of the marketplace relationship, Leahy, after reading that creative writing students felt tricked by their programmes and training, asked how teachers can talk to students about the marketplace issues without disheartening them. As a teacher in the field of poetry, Leahy’s experience was that neither she nor her students think they will make money from their writing. Vanderslice tells her students that they will need another source of income. This raised two questions from Leahy: Did students believe this? And, what were other instructors telling their students? A handful of educators responded with their own experiences of trying to teach students to be pragmatic. Anecdotally, Leahy found that today’s students do not have the skills, experience or understanding about the realities of publishing outcomes. In addition, Leahy wondered if things had changed and if so why students did not now understand the uphill challenge. She wondered if the university model of what a degree means had changed how students viewed their experience.

Some of the terms used by the field offer further insight into the complex nature of the marketplace relationship and the resistances that students must negotiate.

5. What is ‘publishable’?

Interestingly, the idea that students should be creating publishable work is one that is deeply held in the field. However, exactly what publishable means is contested, as can be observed in Munden’s [27] study. A key term of assessment used by educators in the field is that the work created by a student should be of publishable quality. In the US context, the aim of the MFA is to produce students who can create a publishable book-length submission for their final academic assessment [31]. This view is not unique to the United States. In 2000, the AAWP initiated a programme of state-based seminars, the first of which were held in Adelaide and Melbourne. These seminars involved many of the writing teachers in each state, from the TAFE and University sectors. Topics discussed included ‘publishability’ and ‘publishable standard’ [32]. In the United Kingdom in 2013, Cusk [33] reported that work should be ‘of publishable standard’. As the ‘Subject Association for Creative Writing’ in the United Kingdom, the NAWE [34], rather than providing an overall guideline like the Association of Writers & Writing Programs (AWP), presents an outline of what various programmes offer. In this, some courses do state that they aim for publishing outcomes. Others do not indicate whether this is a focus.

Discussion about the term publishable often does not provide clarity as to whether the work will actually be published, and this is a concern to some in the field. In 1999, Dawson [35] argued that a creative component of publishable quality is a work that will withstand the same critical assessment applied to the cannon of literature. In 2005, Dawson [36] contended that the postgraduate student’s submission must hold to this standard. This approach does not indicate whether the work will be published. Bourke and Neilsen [37] expressed this concern about unpublished work being assessed and go on to demonstrate that few students at the time of submitting their final projects have achieved this standard or publication. Some seek to address the issue, but there is no one approach. Kroll [38] wrestled with what the term publishable means and challenges the resistance to marketplace preparation. She wants more transparency of the term and proposes either including an assessor from the industry (such as an editor or agent) on an examination committee or having a non-academic who looks for what sells to supply a report to examiners, particularly when the examiner is not well published. Harper [39] considers publishability an out-of-date standard for assessment.

The term continues to be the standard of evaluation, as Boyd [40] reveals when examining the issue of what publishable quality is in creative writing doctorate outcomes from 1993 to 2008 in Australia. Boyd concludes that publishable is still the main method used for evaluation. Her findings also reveal that universities focus on literary creative work that is not as publishable. This further demonstrates a resistance to commercial marketplace outcomes. Boyd seeks to negotiate an alternative in proposing that more popular genres should be given recognition within higher education, and this can be done by reframing the terms used. Krauth [41] notes that Boyd’s study demonstrates the publishable nature of creative work developed in programmes because nearly half of the creative works that Boyd assessed in her research did reach the marketplace in some fashion. This analysis indicates that publishing does matter.

Publishing is not just a measure of what students should aim for; publication is valued and is used as a measurement of programme success. Edmonds [42] considers a shelf of published books displayed at the University of Adelaide as a sign of a high standard of success. However, he is careful to point out that publishing is not the only outcome from the training and programme. Further, he advises, the current situation is very different to the 1970s when validation came from a few readers. Edmonds argues that in the modern marketplace validation may still be small and localised within academic publishing discourse. He does not want to see a shift to commercialisation for validation. Edmonds [43] also argues the importance of a certain type of narrow market print journal that can provide marketplace outcomes, but does not believe that outcome is necessary for every student. Negotiation of the marketplace can and does come in the form of developing and supporting outlets for publication such as small presses and literary journals and through efforts to recognise and value these publications in the field. Now that many journals are digitally published, this raises questions about the effect on a student’s relationship to the marketplace.

Some researchers demonstrate concern about focusing on the idea of publishing and valuing any commodity outcome over the creative act itself. Harper [44] proposes that whether the work is published or publishable is not more valuable than other undertakings in creative practice. Harper is not alone in this view. Others consider that despite the ‘publishable’ issue, creative writing education is about something else. There are more ways that the field demonstrates resistance to a focus on the marketplace, and these are found in other terms that are used.

6. What is ‘marketplace’ and what is ‘literature’?

Another term that requires consideration is marketplace. Related to this, the term economy often arises. First, what exactly is the marketplace to those working in higher education creative writing? A commonly held belief is that a creative writer in higher education will publish in the literary marketplace. The slippery nature of this term is recognised by Edmonds [43] when he examines ways to engage in the ‘so-called’ literary marketplace. According to Brier [45], who also recognises that the term is ‘elusive’, the literary marketplace produces literature and is the context for literature. When Brier [45] considers the term literature, he concludes that finding a definition for the term and a description of a discrete marketplace is difficult. He argues that one of the reasons the distinction arises is because of the post-World War II idea of a market economy which disseminates culture, an idea drawn from scholarly work including Bourdieu’s [46] ‘The field of cultural production, or: the economic world reversed’ and English’s [47] The economy of prestige. Both works position literature and cultural production in sociological accounts of marketplace and market economy at national and global levels. However, Brier [45] argues the discussion is ongoing. Bourdieu [46] offers a foundation for many theorists in creative writing, and the field also draws from the creative industries in its views of the relationship. Other theorists including the psychologist Csikszentmihalyi are considered useful in negotiating the relationship between author and audience [48, 49]. There is recognition that engaging in the commercial or mass marketplace is a struggle for those in the field of creative writing, as Sheahan-Bright [50] finds when examining children’s literature. Mayers [51] refers to this contested relationship as the ‘tension between “literary” and “genre fiction”’ [50]. He argues that this issue has been increasing. Certainly, changes brought about by the digital marketplace must play a role in this.

Regarding practical pedagogical issues, Mayers [51] recognises that some programmes will still train MFA students for the literary marketplace to varying degrees, but he is opposed to training or producing writers for this end and argues that the aim should be ‘experience-based inquiry into the act of writing’ [51]. Hergenrader [52] also recognises the limitations in the digital age of the ‘literary marketplace lore’ [53], along with the issue of genre to which, he argues, students are often more alert than teachers.

Creative writing scholars have used other terms to explore the relationship to the marketplace. Hecq [54] in examining the relationship between the creative writer and ‘the creativity market’ positions creative work produced in the field within the global knowledge-based economy. Importantly, the concerns about being publishable while working within the university are closely examined [55]. In Hecq’s context of the ‘creativity market’, Webb [49] argues that the university can function in the same way as the Greek agora (a communal space for political, religious, economic, educational and social interaction) to balance marketplace and creative needs. Other terms used by the field include ‘the marketplace of ideas’ [56], ‘cultural capital’ [57] and the ‘public intellectual’ [36]. A more sustained discussion of the various terms is beyond the scope of this review. However, these examples demonstrate how it could be argued that the terms all represent an ongoing effort by the field to negotiate a relationship to a marketplace and a resistance to engagement with strictly commercial market outcomes.

7. Reasons for resistance

There appear to be good reasons for resistance in the contemporary context that include protecting students, teachers and the boundaries of the field from the vagaries of the marketplace and other external pressures. For example, the challenges of making an income as a writer in Australia due to a small population and a lack of grant support have been demonstrated [58] and discussed [59]. The discussion points to the need for grants; but many writers are unlikely to receive such funding [59]. The capricious marketplace’s influence on education and the limited amount of grants are not the only concerns. Government and political factors exert pressure on aesthetic practice [60]. There is a worry that government policy can apply unproductive influence upon academic outcomes. This useful warning is important when considering the publishing outcomes students should be prepared to achieve within the discipline and in ensuring that the terms of engagement are carefully negotiated. Perry [61] clarifies her preference for ‘creative ecologies’ over ‘creative economy’ to ensure that there is no confusion about economic imperative. To add to the complexity in this environment, over-extended educators must maintain their creative work as well as other demands [62]. Relating to and complicating this is the issue of the transient nature of being a part-time academic [63]. Another issue is that of maintaining disciplinary integrity [64]. In the US context, creative writing often seeks to differentiate itself from English literature and composition writing classes, although in many cases the development of creative writing as a field emerged from, or in relationship to, these areas [65, 66, 67]. The variable borders present challenges. As Kroll [64] argues, ongoing discussion is required ‘in the context of volatile institutional and research environments as well as variable student bodies’ [64].

Another example of the challenge of identifying where the boundaries lie is within the areas of creative writing and professional writing that are sometimes lumped into the one discipline. Williamson [68] argues that magazine study is an area that can bridge the gap between creative and professional if approached from a scholarly perspective, although it is a field that has traditionally been part of other disciplines. Not all would agree. Surma [69] explains the differences and warns of the danger of the marketplace to professional writing, seeking to locate professional writing away from any vocational or professional orientation and closer to her perspective of the unfettered relationship of creative writing. In addition to these resistances, the purposes of creative writing education demonstrate many goals that are not directly about marketplace preparation.

8. A variety of activities

The development of creative writing programmes in higher education has been well examined from an historical perspective [36, 70, 71]; and the goals for creative writing programmes and classes have been discussed extensively in the pedagogy and are identified by each university and instructor. In the contemporary context, as Myer [70] explains, creative writing in higher education in the United States reached maturity as a discipline in the late 1960s and early 1970s ‘when the purpose of its graduate programs (to produce serious writers) was uncoupled from the purpose of its undergraduate courses (to examine writing seriously from within)’ [70].

8.1 For undergraduates

In line with the ‘uncoupled’ approach that Myers [70] describes, the US-based AWP [72] differentiates undergraduate from graduate work and states that the graduate school’s goal is ‘to nurture and expedite the development of a literary artist’ [72]. Undergraduate programmes are ‘mainly to develop a well-rounded student in the liberal arts and humanities, a student who develops a general expertise in literature, in critical reading and in persuasive writing’ [72]. In a succinct summary of the developments, Bennett [73] clarifies that these were the goals of universities and governments, not of the students. In Australia and the United Kingdom, creative writing developed in different ways from the United States. However, in the current context, the idea that the undergraduate programme is not focused on training for a mass marketplace or even training serious literary writers has also been recognised and argued in many programmes in these three countries [74]. For example, for the UK undergraduate, the focus was on reading and writing, as well as developing communication skills for other jobs. The teaching is about learning to think and read [75].

That there is resistance to the marketplace in undergraduate training is clear. Freiman [76] argues that ‘Rather than claiming to teach students to write “publishable” writing (after all, published by whom?), we are teaching them about writing/reading and how language functions in its “worldly” contexts’ [76]. Krauth and Webb [23] note that writing course enrolment in Australia has increased, while the study of literature has decreased. They analyse this as a move away from a passive way of learning to an active way of learning, unique to creative writing classes. However, the idea of ‘learning to read as a writer’ [36, 77, 78, 79] is also challenged. Jarvis [77] argues for a ‘more radical, liberated reading praxis, a “writerly reading” ’ [77]. He aims to help the field ‘transform from a place in which existing cultural codes are replicated and from which they are promulgated, to a space where the interrogation of cultural codes can take place and new, radical codes can be formed, a locus of dissent’ [77]. Regardless of the debates on approaches, the current strategy for undergraduate training seems to be fairly consistent in that the approach is about teaching reading and writing. According to Radia [80], training is not generally focused on the marketplace. However, at the advanced levels of education, what the training is about is more contested.

8.2 For postgraduates

In higher-level training, there are more expectations and discussion of writers becoming professional. There is concern that it is not possible to produce large numbers of professional writers and that there is a need for other jobs for these students. Hayes [9] considers the practicality of marketplace outcomes for students training as writers and believes that the Australian situation is similar to the US situation. She proposes publishing and journalism as alternatives and encourages student internships as being beneficial to the student, the university and potential employer organisations.

Although the discussion can turn to the idea of vocational training, this is carefully navigated. Edmonds [42] does not want to be trapped by publishing outcome expectations, but sees the teacher as ‘agent/editor’ [42]. He views the workshop as a mini version of the publishing market. Wandor [71] is also careful with the idea of vocational training, describing her approach as ‘professional’; yet she steers away from the Romantic muse [81, 82] and the ideas of being a professional writer. Wander’s focus is on building knowledge through critical reading to learn about literary traditions and improve writing. Brook [83], in considering vocational outcomes in Australian creative writing programmes, argues that ‘Creative writing is not a failed form of vocational training for professional literary careers; rather, it is a form of general literary education in which the figure of “failure” has, at times, played a key pedagogic role in forming personalities’ [83]. Cowan [84] recognises the validity of Myers’ ideas about ‘examining literature from within’ [70], yet recognises a growing vocational focus towards creative industries and the training of research academics. The lack of clarity about the vocational nature complicates the environment the student must navigate.

Another purpose for creative writing arises with the idea of research in higher levels of study. By the end of the 1990s, there had been a move away from creative writing as training for writers and a move towards it being about ‘practice-oriented research’ [28]. In Australia in 2000, Krauth [85] argued for more higher degree research and creative writing PhDs. He wants to see creative writing working in the ‘higher echelons’ of academia where the focus is ‘on research excellence and which, to a significant extent, gives universities their “real” reason to exist’ [85]. Others recognise this direction and see the effort being made to acknowledge creative writing ‘as a form of research’ [86]. More recent discussion in Australia on training by Kroll and Brien [87] focuses on preparing students for ‘life’ in a way that may not be about making a living as a creative writer, even if writing and publishing are part of the outcome. They argue that practice-based research prepares graduates ‘to take part fully in the intellectual, creative, cultural and economic life of our nation’ [87]. The US context is different in this regard with the focus of the MFA being on the creative work, and there is rarely a research component, but there has been some change in this. Donnelly [88] argues that one of the more critical ambitions of creative writing studies is the training of its graduates in teacher preparation. Donnelly also sees the potential for creative writing studies to develop with a focus on research. The Creative Writing Studies Organisation held its first conference in 2016 and established The Journal of Creative Writing Studies to help fill this gap in the US context. Even with this new direction, there is a concern about publishing and the marketplace, about what constitutes research outcomes for the creative writer and about new challenges in publishing, both creative and critical [89].

The struggle between creative writing and scholarly expectations increases as more researchers in the field emerge. Programmes may need to recognise that students will piece together their careers. Williamson [90] introduces the idea of students in the creative arts as ‘future protean careerists’. She focuses on ‘the situated nature of writing’ and refers to Carter’s [91] ‘pedagogy of rhetorical dexterity’ in which students learn the ‘code of a community of practice new to them’. Williamson [90] also adopts Woods’ [92] framework for academic writing that does not differentiate between orientations (e.g. creative writing and professional writing). Williamson [90] argues this approach allows students to gain training that helps them make a cognisant transfer as writers to a workplace. A 2015 Curtin University final report [93] from a study of 4360 graduates that included creative writers cites Williamson’s work and argues for training across various areas of writing.

Many educators have contributed new literature and terms as writer-scholars of creative writing practice-led research. Some have focused on identifying new research methods to bring critical research and creative practice together [94]. The educators’ role is also discussed in this environment. Krauth [41] considers the role of supervisor as editor. The questions of whether this implies a preparation for the marketplace and, if so, what is that marketplace and what degree of editorial intervention is required are not easy to answer. Krauth [41] contends that for doctoral candidates, supervisors are the best editors. Manery’s [95] 2016 phenomenological study reveals five different pedagogical identities in educators in the field: ‘Expert Practitioner, Facilitator, Change Agent, Co-Constructor of Knowledge and Vocational Coach’. All these issues indicate the complex territory that the student negotiates if they are trying to write for the marketplace.

9. Other ideas about training

Additionally, there are many other ideas about what occurs in creative writing education, in which the focus shifts away from the marketplace. These include ideas about creativity, therapy and experience and other non–market-oriented outcomes. The creativity issue is widely debated. Pope [96] discusses creation v. production. Kuhl [97] is concerned about marketplace creativity and weighs up personal therapeutic writing v. literary writing. Freiman [98] discusses the ‘dangers of the myths of creativity’. Rodriguez [99] provides a summary of the many different approaches. Fenza [100] describes the wide range of approaches and goals creative writing covers—from the aesthetic, to the social and political roles the student takes and how students learn about ‘literature from inside their own work, rather than from outside a text; and this has motivated many to gain greater command of rhetoric and communication skills in general’ [99]. Fenza [100] also claims that students ‘analyse psychology and motives, the dynamics of social classes and individual, regional and national beliefs’ [100]. Additionally, students learn to ‘order their lives and their world’ while ‘advancing the art of literature’ and making stories and poems as ‘gifts for readers and listeners’ [100]. Importantly, this engagement is ‘a highly civilised and humane act; and appropriately, academe has accepted the practice and making of the literary arts along with study and scholarship in the literary arts’ [100]. This view is recognised by Harper and Kroll [100]. By including Fenza’s views in their work, they appear to value these goals and outcomes in Australia and the United Kingdom. However, the approaches do not have to preclude preparing for professional outcomes. Brophy [101] has broad experience as an educator and an AAWP attendee and is aware of the significance in Australia of ‘outcome-based education, of professional opportunities and the acquisition of transferable skills for students’ [101]. These, he argues, are ‘central imperatives’ in a large number of creative writing programmes [101]. However, the situation varies from programme to programme and from educator to educator and makes for a challenging space for the student to negotiate.

10. Educators in favour of being market-prepared

Despite these other focuses – or even resistances – there are educators who are concerned about students becoming market-prepared. Kroll [7, 8] seeks to create a consciousness in her students about who will be their customers, about editing and publishing and about the economic concerns of the writer. Manhire [102] confronts the marketplace situation in the Australian context in an address to the 2001 AAWP Conference, in which he describes a course called ‘Creative Writing in the Marketplace’. He begins by giving apologies for his topic, providing an indication of the angst associated the marketplace discussion. Manhire [102] provides opportunities and methods for the discipline to help students become more market-prepared. Fisher [103] raises concerns about a lack of training for creative writers in a plenary address in 2005 at the AAWP 10th Annual Conference. Speaking on ‘The Professional Author; Researching Creativity and Reality’, Fisher argues that writer-artists will become ‘freaks’ without market engagement. He argues that there is more than the mass market to consider and that writing courses should ‘address fundamental issues related to writers making a living—contracts, copyright, legal issues’. Educators must help writers to envision themselves in the marketplace, as part of ‘an industry that survives on market forces’ [103]. Edmonds [43] warns of the dangers of a closed system and stresses the need to be talking about a broader marketplace.

In the United States, Vanderslice [104] is concerned about the concept of not training students to be teachers and publishing writers. Others also challenge those who do not recognise the professional writing outcome expectations of their students. In Australia, Fisher [105] provides insight on his perspective and that of Thebo [19] on the role of the university in preparing students for the marketplace. Fisher [105] finds Thebo’s position of not expecting undergraduate students to become professional writers erroneous. He questions the lack of ‘engagement with writing as a profession or publishing as the principal industry within which professional writers work’ [105]. Fisher [105] does not want to see universities turning out students unprepared to earn a living.

However, according to Vanderslice [104], Thebo has helped her students have more publishing know-how with the development of two courses at Bath Spa University. These are focused on undergraduates, and they initially met with resistance from both colleagues and students. The aim was to help students to develop a professional perspective. Vanderslice argues that such approaches are necessary.

A solution to these differences might be to provide more clarity about exactly what a programme does and where it fits in relationship to other programmes, as Cowan [106] proposes in his strategic plan for the peer review workshop. He argues for various models. One with a market focus might have ‘alternative axes’ that ‘calibrate the extent to which a program is publication- or research-oriented’ [106].

11. Digital future discussion: the effect of technology

Many in the field are aware that digital technology needs to be addressed. Krauth and Webb [23] signal their awareness of the effect of technological changes in making writing more public and expanding publication opportunities. In the United States, the AWP website now includes goals on new media technology and emphasises the need for research to enhance pedagogical understanding and improve practice [72].

There are many ways that creative writers are engaging with the digital world, one example being digital poetics. Yet, that focus does not consider the sociology of the relationship to the space as a marketplace. There are those in digital poetics looking at the relationship with the creative writing classroom and digital storytelling, but there is not much consideration of the student trying to write for the digital marketplace and what effect that may have on the field. Andrew [107] discusses the possibilities of online teaching and is encouraged by Healey’s [108] argument that the ‘opposition between cultivated humanism and vulgar marketplace, between impractical creativity and practical profitability, is rapidly disappearing’ [109 cited in 108]. Further, Andrew [107] argues for the need to nurture the market for online delivery by ‘better understanding the theories and pedagogies of online delivery and its potential for community-building and for workshops’ [107]. Others are engaging in this research. Rein [109] explores ways to improve the online classroom situation. Some researchers are focusing on the opportunities afforded by digital publishing. Williams [110] considers the creative writing pedagogy of the future and argues that students should be taught to ‘think strategically and rhetorically about where to publish and how to be read’ [110]. Williams argues that finding an online audience should be a part of what is taught, whether that is weighing up the quality of online journals and sites or using social media to connect and draw readers. But what are the implications for a student trying to work in this space? Barnard [111] considers her existing skills from previous training in other forms of technology that could also have value in the future. Further, she believes that this approach can be taught to others.

12. Conclusion

The study has examined the complex nature of the creative writing student’s relationship to the marketplace as described in current scholarship. The findings indicate that there are students who do want to reach the marketplace and publish and that there are resistances to this outcome, as well as support for achieving this goal. Although there has been resistance to the marketplace relationship for valid reasons that honour the traditions and protect the boundaries of the discipline, there are ongoing negotiations as to what the relationship to the marketplace means. There are many ways to interact with and define the marketplace, and there are educators who do seek to challenge resistance and argue for engaging and preparing students.

Digital technology and new marketplace opportunities raise questions about whether the values, goals and terms used in relation to the marketplace are still valid and if the resistances and areas of engagement can or should be re-negotiated. Further research will provide insight into best practices for teaching about and engaging with the marketplace.

Acknowledgments

The research for this review was funded in part by an Australian Government Research Training Scholarship (RTP). Support was also provided by the UWA Graduate Research School, the UWA School of Humanities and the UWA Institute of Advanced Studies.

Additional information

Susan Taylor Suchy is an Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Western Australia in the School of Humanities within Arts, Business, Law and Education.