Peer Feedback in Writing Groups

For Sustained Support and Growth, Form a Writing Group

Peers are a great resource for a number of reasons: They understand what it’s like being a graduate student or a postdoc; they also understand how much work goes into completing milestones along the course of a graduate career or in submitting an article for publication. Peers can hold one another accountable while working through writing projects. They can also combat your feelings of isolation and create a positive community that provides intellectual and psychological support. A writing group may even result in later research collaborations!

Successful writing groups negotiate a shared understanding about the group’s purpose and objectives to ensure each member moves forward and finishes individual writing projects. To accomplish this, members must reach consensus on the following aspects:

• To keep the spirit of every meeting positive and productive.
• How often to meet, for how long, and where.
• Limiting membership to four or five individuals, so each participant receives feedback every 2-3 weeks.
• Whether members’ project topics are related or not, if members need to be from the same department or across departments, and whether t members have to be at the same stage of writing.
• The format for the meeting; that is, the amount of time spent on the writing process as opposed to time spent on writing feedback.
• The individuals who serve as a facilitator to keep the discussions on task, a convener to send reminders, and a time keeper to monitor agreed upon time allocations.
• The kinds of work to be read (e.g., dissertations, grant proposals, rough or polished drafts, interview protocols, posters, CVs or job cover letters).
• Both the number of pages to be submitted and the number of days needed for thoughtful feedback.
• The kind of feedback that’s reasonable to expect (e.g., organization, clarity, depth of ideas, use of figures, detailed grammar or word choice, etc.).

—Adapted with permission from Stanford University’s Hume Center for Writing and Speaking

Argument and overall structure

Step 1

During initial edits, focus on the macro level. Consider the overall document to see if your colleague has a clear purpose, a narrowly defined topic, and a clear logic to the order of the sections and to the paragraphs within each section. What is most important is the writer’s persuasiveness: Are each of the sections convincing? Are the writer’s research question, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions defensible? Also, does the evidence presented speak for itself? The writer shouldn’t need to tell the reader why it supports their argument.

Step 2

Next, move to the paragraph level. Each paragraph should contain a topic sentence, and each sentence in that paragraph should support or elaborate on that topic. If a sentence introduces an additional idea or concept, this may be a tangential idea. Recommend that the writer reevaluate whether the sentence simply belongs in another paragraph or if it should be omitted entirely. Sentences that support the paragraph topic should remain, though they may need to be reorganized so the paragraph develops logically. Additionally, the length of the sentences should be varied to help keep the reader interested.

Step 3

Third, see if writers have used clear language. Suggest they simplify long phrases, use short and precise words, and use concrete examples rather than vague language. Watch for nouns that could become verbs because verbs more clearly convey the action of sentences. For example, use “consider” rather than “give consideration to.”

Step 4

Finally, check to see if the tone is authoritarian—attributing too much significance to others’ research to bolster your own position—or dismissive, particularly when discussing the weaknesses in the literature.