POST-DISASTER ONLINE WRITING GROUPS AS ACADEMIC SOLIDARITY

Academic writing already is a largely solitary and anxiety-inducing process. This is particularly the case for early-career researchers and underrepresented scholars (Driscoll et al. Reference Driscoll, Parkes, Tilley‐Lubbs, Brill and Bannister2009; Heslop et al. Reference Heslop, Bonilla-Velez, Faucett and Cabrera-Muffly2023; Kent et al. Reference Kent, Berry, Budds, Skipper and Williams2017). OWGs provide a space of community and solidarity of the type that research shows can mitigate these negative emotions (Kaniasty Reference Kaniasty2020) while also providing structure and focus to enhance writing momentum. During the additional, differentially experienced stress of the COVID-19 pandemic (Ramos et al. Reference Ramos, Elliott, Fattore and Breuning2022), research shows that OWGs boosted productivity and morale amid isolation, anxiety, and frustration (Elliot and Makara Reference Elliot and Makara2021; Freya and Cutri Reference Freya, Cutri, de Caux, Pretorius and Macaulay2023; Saltzman, Hansel, and Bordnick Reference Saltzman, Hansel and Bordnick2020). Benefits also can include peer mentorship, expansion of professional networks, and reduction of “imposter syndrome” (Barham and Wood Reference Barham and Wood2022; Cassese and Holman Reference Cassese and Holman2018; Michelson and Monforti Reference Michelson and Monforti2021).

Some of the OWGs that emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic grew out of preexisting networks, such as PhD cohorts and region- and issue-based professional organizations. Based on the literature and discussions with participants in my group, structure and content varied widely—for example, feedback-based sessions or silent coworking with preset weekly time slots or ad hoc get-togethers. One survey participant in this study mentioned a university “virtual office” link established during the pandemic that could be joined “impromptu” at any time but expressed—as did others—a strong preference for “regular” sessions (Respondent 30). Furthermore, participants commented that initiatives that began during the pandemic had largely dissolved, and some mentioned that they had turned to fee-based, online coworking spaces such as Focusmate and Caveday (participant observation). The fact that resource-strapped doctoral students pay to work in an online group setting testifies to perennial, widely experienced challenges of getting writing done and the utility of having company—even of strangers—in doing so (Kelley Reference Kelley2022).

Natural disasters exacerbate writing challenges in detrimentally compounding ways. Shock and grief immediately following a disaster can evolve into anger and frustration about government response, creating additional psychological obstacles to productivity. These concerns about productivity and, in turn, worries about job security due to decreased productivity can further strain mental health for those who are already experiencing trauma (Baez, de la Fuente, and Santos Reference Baez, de la Fuente and Santos2010; Beaglehole et al. Reference Beaglehole, Mulder, Frampton, Boden, Newton-Howes and Bell2018; Saeed and Gargano Reference Saeed and Gargano2022). A survey respondent stated that the news about the politics of Turkey’s earthquake “became an enormous distraction, making it difficult for [them] to maintain [their] usual self-discipline” and creating “heightened anxiety levels beyond anything [they] had experienced before” (R3). As shown in table 1, more than 25% of the 45 survey respondents specified the shared trauma of the earthquake among their motivation for joining the OWG. Responses coded as group/community and distractions/focus did not specifically mention the earthquake or trauma, but they may be related to disaster-exacerbated isolation and news-cycle–related distractions.

Table 1

Motivations

Moreover, the effects of this trauma on scholars in our communities reach far beyond the disaster zone. Whereas those who are living in regions affected by natural disasters face physical and logistical challenges as well as the psychological toll, scholars in the diaspora also may experience feelings of isolation, frustration, and anxiety as they watch their colleagues go about daily life while they are struggling to meet writing deadlines (Diaz Reference Díaz2017; Takeda Reference Takeda2015). Of the 12 survey respondents who cited shared trauma as a motivation to join the OWG, eight were located outside of Turkey. One participant who was based in the United States underscored the particular challenge of being “an ocean away” in a materially comfortable setting while family and loved ones struggled back home (Email 3). Post-disaster OWGs can provide a tailored platform for scholars who are seeking solidarity with co-nationals who are sharing similar trauma, including those outside of the disaster zone. Supporting this point, a participant who indicated the United Kingdom/Europe for their region noted that they were part of other groups but, “at that moment, I needed one to acknowledge what was happening during the disaster” (R45).

CASE STUDY: 2023 EARTHQUAKES IN TURKEY AND SYRIA

On February 6, 2023, a series of devastating earthquakes and aftershocks hit Turkey and Syria, killing more than 50,000 people, displacing millions, and destroying thousands of workplaces. Search and research efforts and aid provision were hindered in both countries by numerous factors, including the lack of preparedness, hyper-centralization of decision-making authority, and effects of Syria’s civil war. As the immediacy of the catastrophe began to fade, scholars from the region shared on social media that they felt alone, invisible, and lacking focus. Researchers at universities outside of the region expressed frustration that those around them could not understand the magnitude of the grief and anger they felt at the (lack of) government response (Atay Alam and Sarıyüce Reference Atay Alam and Sarıyüce2023). Scholars in the diaspora also noted that they felt guilty for thinking about their own work-related issues while those back home were suffering physical and financial hardship. These responses reflect findings in the disaster literature suggesting that diasporic individuals experience guilt for not “sharing the same hardship” as those back home, leading them to seek solidarity among co-nationals (Takeda Reference Takeda2015, 500).

Politics exacerbated challenges to productivity, consuming energy and generating hours of unhealthy “doom-scrolling” irrespective of location (Mannell and Meese Reference Mannell and Meese2022). This time suck was compounded in Turkey by the runup to highly contested elections in May 2023 and by government moves to shift university education online to free up dormitory space for those displaced. Scholars tweeted that amid a never-ending news cycle, they were struggling to focus, meet deadlines, and thus progress in their careers. I observed that social media posts expressing these sentiments began to circulate approximately one month after the earthquakes.

Considering how a previous ad hoc writing group in which I joined two scholars from Turkey allowed us to vent about politics and then focus on writing tasks, I thought that creating a group for other scholars who were affected could meet some of the demonstrated demand for solidarity and structure. As a political scientist with cumulative years of fieldwork in Turkey, the great majority of my intellectual, professional, and personal community is centered in the country and its people. Establishing a virtual writing space seemed like a small way to support those from a region that contributed so much to my own development.

What follows is an overview of how the group formed and the strategies I used to augment participation. On March 3, 2023, I posted a message on what was then Twitter inviting scholars from Turkey and Syria who might benefit from a virtual writing community to contact me (Lisel Hintz [@LiselHintz] Reference Hintz2023). I expected that a few people might want to join. Yet, during the next two days, I received 120 inquiries via direct message and email. I personally knew several of the scholars but had not previously interacted with most of them. The number of my then-Twitter followers—about 15,000 at the time—likely played a significant role in disseminating my initial post outside of my communication circles (i.e., 203 retweets, 1,189 likes). My membership in discipline-based networks meant that many responses came from political scientists. However, broad dissemination generated interest from across academic fields. This wide disciplinary representation led me to choose a silent coworking format for sessions rather than a workshopping group (Buckinx, Buechel, and Silverman Reference Buckinx, Buechel and Silverman2022).

Initially taken aback by the number of requests, I soon replied to each message to ensure that respondents felt acknowledged and knew that I could answer their questions. Communicating individually and setting up the email distribution list took approximately 12 hours, but this represented the only significant time investment other than running the sessions. Furthermore, many scholars wrote that corresponding with someone who showed interest in their well-being was meaningful in a time when many felt isolated in their trauma. By the 42nd week, 229 scholars were on the group email list.

Between the first session on March 7, 2023, and the final session of 2023 on December 21, I held more than 240 two-hour sessions. A term with course leave in Spring 2023 allowed me initially to offer eight sessions, which I continued over the summer. During the Fall 2023 term, in which I taught two courses per week, I held seven weekly sessions. Although I sometimes used the sessions for course preparation, I often benefited from being able to carve out time for writing. For those instructors whose teaching schedules do not permit holding as many sessions, it is useful to note that participants reported that joining even a few times was beneficial. A survey respondent who joined three times noted accomplishing more writing in each session than when working alone (R23). Similarly, a respondent who joined only a few times due to family commitments reported getting four to five hours’ worth of work done in each two-hour session (R24).

Of the total number of participants, 111 scholars joined at least once. A core group of approximately 15 joined regularly, and average participation in each two-hour Zoom session was six to seven scholars. Some scholars joined more than 50 sessions. Of the 45 survey respondents, almost half had participated in more than 10 sessions. This result likely was affected by a correlation between enthusiasm for the group and a willingness to complete the survey. However, as shown in figure 1, several respondents attended no sessions or only one session.

Figure 1

Attendance

Answers from respondents who attended no sessions provided preliminary insight into the discrepancy between those who asked to join the list and those who participated. One respondent cited uncertainty about the purpose of the group and “how it would work” (R9); another reported thinking that the sessions would provide discussions of post-disaster mental health strategies (R4). After receiving these responses, I clarified the language in advertising the group and now include a section for first-time participants in weekly emails entitled, “Here’s What You Can Expect” (see online appendix 2). A third nonparticipant noted an inability to be motivated enough to join (R15), and a fourth cited time-zone differences (R28). As shown in table 2, the reason cited most often for joining less frequently than anticipated or not at all was general scheduling issues, which included time zones.

Table 2

Lower Participation

Despite accommodating as many time zones as possible while I was based in Europe—including offering four sessions from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Eastern Time each week—participation outside of Europe was low: only two survey respondents were based in North America. Almost equal numbers were based in Turkey (22) and the United Kingdom/Europe (19); two cited “other region.” For PhD students in the Pacific Time Zone, for example, morning classes posed an obstacle (Email 1). Other reasons cited included work schedules and family commitments, which may reflect how the gendered dynamics of caregiving shape access to professional opportunities in the Zoom era (Kim and Patterson Reference Kim and Patterson2022). Approximately 80% of those who participated at least once were women, and several remarked that they used the time to carve out space for work apart from familial obligations (participant observation). Both male and female participants were occasionally joined onscreen by family members as they balanced work and childcare. To address time-zone participation issues for more scholars in North America, and at the request of a PhD student in Turkey who could participate only late at night because of childcare responsibilities (Email 6), I recruited a scholar from Turkey based in the United States to host a session from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern Time.

During the first two weeks of sessions in 2024 that were completed by the time of writing, participants based from Turkey to the US West Coast joined sessions hosted by me, now based in the Eastern Time Zone, and group members in the United Kingdom and Turkey who generously volunteered their time. I will continue to host and coordinate sessions among group members as long as my schedule allows and scholars join.

SPECIFYING USEFUL ASPECTS

Drawing on my experience of hosting a post-disaster OWG, as well as survey responses and Internet correspondence, this section highlights group aspects that participants found useful. Table 3 presents the coded survey responses. Similar to answers about their motivation to join and obstacles to participation, respondents often cited multiple factors.

Table 3

Useful Aspects

Group Format

By far, the most frequently cited useful aspect was the group format, a component inherent to all OWGs. However, survey respondents in this post-disaster group often cited the specific nature of the community formed by those sharing a traumatic experience. As one PhD student noted:

The [earthquake and ensuing politics] became an enormous source of distraction, making it difficult for me to maintain my usual self-discipline. Concentration and time management became real challenges, leading to unproductive days, dwindling motivation, and heightened anxiety levels beyond anything I had experienced before. Since I was [doing] field research, I [was] already far from the university and academic environment. I really needed a motivating, disciplining, supporting atmosphere where I could be surrounded by people who shared similar experiences to mine. (R3)

In email correspondence, an assistant professor echoed these sentiments and stressed the benefits of a collaborative atmosphere based on post-disaster solidarity to counter the competitive nature of academia:

[Writing] feels alone, and sometimes I find myself talking to both reviewer [1] and [2] in my head… Amidst a disaster, this group helped me move from a logic of competition, to finding solace and solidarity in cooperation. “We are creating knowledge to our best ability together” is the feeling I leave with after a session. (Email 3)

Feedback from participants indicated that the communal atmosphere created a comfortable environment that provided structure, motivation, and accountability in a post-disaster context. One participant noted that the group setting enabled her to “to overcome my messy post-earthquake psychology (and writer’s block) and come back to the mental space I needed to write and submit [an] article” (Email 2). Survey respondents also highlighted these community and accountability aspects: “[I wanted] to be able to concentrate while working alone (which I struggle [with] quite a lot)” (R12); and “I am struggling myself to sit and work on my master thesis alone. Finding the motivation and keeping it for hours are really challenging for me” (R16). One PhD student working on his own DM’d a screenshot to me showing that he had written a “new record” of 935 words during that evening’s session (Twitter DM 1). Another PhD student stressed the accountability factor that the group generates: “I feel liable to write at least a few paragraphs and these sessions help me to make a structured plan for writing” (R17).

Visibility is a key element of the group format that participants cited as useful. The Zoom group functions as a sort of “virtual library,” in the words of a postdoctoral researcher (R24), because participants work with microphones muted in the online presence of others. Camera use is at participants’ discretion—some join from libraries or cafés or are balancing writing and childcare, for example—but most keep their camera on. One participant noted that visibility bolsters the “psychological aspect of writing together as a group” (R3). Responses suggested that this aspect boosted concentration (e.g., “I concentrate much better when I see others writing” [R2]) and motivation (e.g., “Seeing others working in a devoted manner makes me feel motivated” [R31]). A master’s student emphasized the solidarity aspect: “[S]eeing that people are working alongside me makes me feel like [I am] in a library and proves that it is not just me having hardship to write” (R16). A PhD student echoed the point about participants’ ability to “see that others may struggle too, so [the group] has an alleviating effect on imposter syndrome” (R5). The presence of senior scholars seemed to have an added imposter-syndrome–reducing effect for the many early-career scholars in the group. As one PhD student wrote, “It is amazing to see all the names I read often join the same sessions” (Email 5). PhD students and postdoctoral researchers comprised approximately 75% of the survey respondents (figure 2)—roughly representative of the participation that I observed.

Figure 2

Professional Level

“I WASN’T AWARE OF SUCH A THING, BUT IT SHOULD BE SPREAD” (R36)

In the aftermath of natural disasters, OWGs can assist scholars in (re)building a steady writing schedule among a uniquely supportive community of those who are sharing similar trauma. The data from this study suggest that these groups can have a meaningful impact on affected scholars’ trajectories, particularly for early-career researchers who already are struggling with challenges (e.g., imposter syndrome) when they then are confronted with a devasting disruption. Although university-level initiatives can address such disruptions—partnerships between Scholars at Risk campus chapters and the Global Disaster Assistance Committee to host displaced researchers, for example—the individual act of hosting an OWG can have a wider transformative reach and can aggregate the more often that individuals decide to host them.

Zooming out, post-disaster OWGs can be an effective way to bolster academic solidarity more broadly. The blueprint developed in this article can complement initiatives such as “smoothing the pipeline,” particularly for graduate students from historically underrepresented groups (Becker and Zvobgo Reference Becker and Zvobgo2020), as well as support for contingent faculty (Czastkiewicz and Seefeldt Reference Czastkiewicz and Seefeldt2019). More specifically, characteristics of the post-earthquake OWG suggest that online writing sessions can align with solidarity-building initiatives for Global South scholars, who already face challenges including visa and work-permit hurdles, lower citation rates, and underrepresentation (Collyer Reference Collyer2018; Medie and Kang Reference Medie and Kang2018). Coming from Turkey and Syria, the participants in the OWG that I hosted frequently cited personal struggles with these issues during our welcome chats.

To facilitate the spread of post-disaster OWGs that Respondent 36 advocated as noted previously, I summarize in the following five points the blueprint that this study developed. Building on Koeijer and Parkinson’s (Reference Koeijer and Parkinson2020) aptly titled “Preparing Political Science for Disaster” article, I hope this study prepares scholars to support disaster-affected colleagues in their own research communities.

1. 1. Establishing a Post-Disaster OWG: Assess your personal and institutional capacity to organize and host sessions using a virtual platform such as Zoom for at least a few weeks. If you do not have institutional access to host two-hour online sessions, encourage a colleague in your network with access to provide a link while you commit to fulfilling the host role. If this is not possible, even 45-minute sessions can be valuable in creating community and kickstarting work. After establishing your capacity to host, create an announcement stating the purpose of the group, for whom it is intended, and how people can join. Share the announcement widely on social media and through personal and professional networks. Respond to inquiries with an ethic of care and cognizance of the hardship that those writing to you are experiencing.

2. 2. Expanding Group Reach: Create a spreadsheet of names and email addresses to manage requests to join. Use social media to share group information weekly, and update the spreadsheet as new requests arrive. Whereas my relatively large social media following was a bonus, those with a smaller online presence can ask others with a larger following to amplify their call. They also can ask colleagues to mention the initiative to any potentially affected graduate students that they mentor. I thank those who did so for this OWG.

3. 3. Communicating Group Information: Using Bcc for privacy, email the schedule and password-protected Zoom link at the same time each week. Ensure that the time zone listed is very clear, and be aware of regional variation around daylight-savings periods. To clarify expectations, include in each weekly email helpful information for first-time participants.

4. 4. Run-of-Show: Verbally greet participants at the beginning of the session and via DM for late joiners. Chat for a few minutes while participants are joining to build up group energy and create a communal atmosphere. To create focus and identify common interests, ask participants to post a sentence in the group chat about their task for that session. Ask participants to mute their microphone and close social media apps, and wish them a productive session. End sessions promptly by letting participants know that time is up and when they can expect the next session.

5. 5. Building Motivation: To motivate new and regular participants, use the welcome talk and group-chat function to mention the progress that participants have made with their journal and dissertation submissions and finished chapters. Celebrate the achievement of small goals such as daily word targets reached as well.