‘Let’s treat writing as shared infrastructure rather than private struggle’

Faculty care deeply about their work and understand that to share it, they must write about it. What they struggle with are the conditions under which writing is meant to happen – fragmented time, competing priorities and a persistent sense that writing must be squeezed in around everything else.

For this reason, writing should be viewed as not only an individual craft but also as an institutional practice. How universities structure time, signal what counts as legitimate work and create protected space for writing strongly influences whether it happens at all. In my work supporting faculty writing, I have seen that when universities treat writing as invisible individual labour, it becomes squeezed and solitary. When they treat it as shared, supported infrastructure, writing becomes sustainable, productive and far less isolating.

Writing problems are structural, not personal

From an institutional perspective, this distinction matters. Faculty routinely tell us that what they need most is more time, even while acknowledging that this will not materialise. While institutions cannot create time, they can create protected time – bubbles in which competing demands are removed and writing is explicitly legitimised. This does not require large budgets or permanent programme redesigns; even short, institutionally sanctioned periods of protected time can meaningfully change writing behaviour.

• ‘The process of writing forces the writer to be present’
• Advice for protecting writing time and motivation
• Science isn’t a solo sport – let’s write accordingly

For us, writing retreats and similar initiatives have been effective. Their value lies less in instruction than in protection. Removing faculty from their offices, providing institutional cover for that absence, and clearly signalling that this time matters all help create conditions in which writing becomes possible. 

Proven methods, real momentum

One of the most effective tools we have seen in these contexts is the pomodoro method – not because it is novel or sophisticated, but because it is manageable. Breaking writing into 25-minute, interruption-free blocks shifts the psychological framing of the task. Writing a book feels overwhelming; writing for 25 minutes does not.

Used well, these short intervals also help writers build momentum. The end of each session becomes an opportunity to acknowledge progress and set up the next step, leaving a “breadcrumb” that makes re-entry easier the next time. For institutions, the lesson here is not the technique itself but the decision to take responsibility for the conditions around writing – managing time, interruptions and transitions so faculty don’t have to.

Crucially, these structures work best when they are provided for faculty rather than imposed on them, reinforcing agency rather than compliance. 

Expand what counts as writing

Another barrier to participation in writing initiatives is a narrow definition of writing itself. Faculty in laboratory- or practice-based disciplines, for example, may hesitate to attend writing retreats because they do not see their work as “writing”. Broadening this definition can be transformative, particularly in disciplines where writing is not always recognised as central scholarly labour.

Grant proposals, course materials, promotion dossiers, reflective narratives and public-facing pieces are all forms of writing. So, too, is the cognitive work of thinking, outlining and processing ideas. When institutions explicitly adopt a broad understanding of what counts as writing, participation widens – and writing becomes more inclusive, where a wide range of scholarly work is recognised and valued.

Writing as peer mentoring and connection

Writing support also creates mentoring opportunities. When faculty sit alongside one another and share what they are working on – and what they are struggling with – mentoring happens organically. Advice is exchanged, and disciplinary boundaries begin to soften.

These interactions are often cross-disciplinary, connecting colleagues who might never otherwise meet. A performing artist and an engineer may discover overlapping interests; a senior academic may casually demystify a process that feels opaque to someone earlier in their career. In this sense, writing programmes help build relationships. Framed this way, writing support can be understood as mentoring infrastructure. This is particularly valuable in contexts where formal mentoring is uneven, poorly defined or inaccessible.

Writing support and institutional priorities

Seen from a strategic perspective, this work aligns closely with broader institutional goals. Universities seeking to attract and retain outstanding faculty must provide not only resources, but space, security and community. Writing support contributes directly to faculty success, well-being and retention – and, by extension, to research quality, institutional reputation and long-term sustainability.

It also supports interdisciplinarity and public engagement. Writing retreats and groups create spaces where ideas circulate across fields, and where faculty can think more deliberately about how their work travels beyond specialist audiences. For institutions with public missions, including land-grant universities, this emphasis on public-facing scholarship is not an optional extra, but a core responsibility.

Facilitating rather than directing

One final principle underpins effective writing support: institutions should resist the urge to over-direct. Faculty understand faculty experience. The most productive role for central units is often to facilitate connections, provide light structure and resources, and then step back.

We invite faculty to share their successful writing practices at retreats, rather than relying solely on centrally delivered instruction. These exchanges create relationships that persist beyond the programme itself. A short conversation at a retreat can become a future collaboration. Writing support, at its best, enables faculty to build the networks they need to sustain their work over time.

Writing has always been shaped by context, conversation and community. Treating writing as shared infrastructure rather than private struggle is not only kinder, it is also more strategic and far more effective. When institutions get this right, writing becomes a supported, collective practice through which scholarship – and scholars – can thrive.

Rachel Gabriele is associate vice-provost for faculty affairs, policy and administration at Virginia Tech.

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.