Journal of Education, 2016
Issue 66, http://joe.ukzn.ac.za

“It was an oasis in a busy life, a busy city”:

the Centre for Learning, Teaching and

Development writing retreat

Jane Castle and Moyra Keane
(Received 9 May 2016; accepted 29 August 2016)

Abstract

 A growing body of research literature indicates that writing retreats for academics are conducive
for the development of writer confidence and competence, and for increasing participants’ rate of
research publication. Can writing retreats also restore a sense of community and collegiality? This
paper addresses this question by presenting a case study of a series of small-group, process-oriented
writing retreats held at an urban, research- intensive university in Johannesburg from 2011 to 2015.
Data in the form of participants’ free writes and post-retreat written evaluations, as well as
facilitators’ reflective dialogues and observations were collected and analysed. Dirkx’s (2001)
theory of transformative learning provides the main analytical lens. Key findings are that such
retreats restore the sense of community and collegiality that seems to be fast disappearing in the
high stress university environment in which the retreat is located. The authors argue that
residential, process-oriented writing retreats provide a safe, accountable and generative space for
writers to test their ideas and skills, and draw strength from the experiences of those around them.

 “To have time and focus. . . to retreat from all else and concentrate on writing.”

Introduction

A growing body of research indicates that writing retreats enhance the
production of research publications as well as the writer’s confidence and
growth in a university context (Thomson & Kamler, 2013; Grant & Knowles,
2010; Moore, Murphy & Murray, 2010). In this article we argue that in the
high-stress context of an urban, research-intensive university in South Africa,
off-campus, residential writing retreats offer a generative and rewarding
response to pressures to write. We argue for a particular type of retreat, the
‘process-oriented retreat’ that leads to growth of writer identity and enhanced
collegiality, along with research publication. 



208        Journal of Education, No. 66, 2016

Purpose

This paper addresses the research question ‘What does it take to create and
sustain a productive and nurturing writing space in the high-stress
environment of a research-intensive university in South Africa?’

Context

Spread over five campuses near the centre of Johannesburg, the University is
at the commercial and industrial heart of the country and plays a dynamic role
in the city’s links to Africa and the world. Johannesburg was founded on the
discovery of gold 130 years ago, and has always been a city of opportunity, a
city ‘on the make’ (University Review, 2014).

The landscape around the University is bisected by freeways and surrounded
by low-income, high-density apartment blocks, interspersed with commercial
buildings. There are no parks or green spaces near the university that are safe
to walk in. The road traffic is erratic, noisy and dangerous at all hours. Yet it
is a paradox of the city that there are also beautiful trees, a diversity of people
from all over Africa, astonishing projects of courage and creativity, and world
class galleries, museums and concert halls, many of them part of the
University. 

Over the last fifteen years the University has grown quickly in response to
government directives to broaden access to higher education and to
‘transform’ the racial composition of the student body and staff corpus. The
number of students has more than doubled in the last decade, standing at
nearly 37,000 in 2016, while the staff complement has grown at a much
slower rate. The student body has outgrown the infrastructure built for a
smaller number of students, and class sizes have grown exponentially. The
teaching loads of permanent staff have increased, while the position of tutors
and ‘early career academics’ employed in short-term, grant-funded, contract
posts grows ever more precarious. 

Recent years have seen policy shifts and changes in leadership style at the
university. Previous administrations introduced a regime of audit,
performativity and competitiveness which has become widespread in
universities in the UK, Australia and South Africa (Thomson & Kamler,



Castle and Keane: “It was an oasis in a busy life. . .       209

2013; Petersen, 2009). This regime has been intensified by the current
leadership of the University: managerialism and centralised control have
taken a firm hold. In 2012 there were staff protests and strikes over poor pay,
long hours and budget cuts, followed by a series of resignations and
departures among senior managers. In 2014 and 2015 the academic staff
union reported that the number of disciplinary cases and formal grievances
against senior managers was growing, with notable increases in charges of
bullying, intimidation and poor management (ASAXU, 2014, 2015). In 2016
armed security forces were brought on campus ostensibly to protect staff,
students and property of the University in the aftermath of the #Feesmustfall
campaign. All of this indicates an institutional culture in which personal and
workplace wellbeing are readily sacrificed. 

Like many other research-intensive institutions in South Africa, the
University aims to be in the top 200 of world university rankings. To increase
its ranking, reputation and income the University needs to increase research
publications and academic staff must complete higher degrees. And so the
pressures on academics mount, particularly for women whose socialisation
may lead them to choose the more person-oriented, nurturing process of
teaching over the perceived solitary activity of writing and research
(Badenhorst, 2010; Prozeski, 2006). The problem is evident: how can
research and publication rates be improved without losing staff due to
unmanageable levels of stress and pressure? How can staff publish more
when they are already overburdened? We take up this dilemma in advocating
for process-oriented writing retreats.

Writing strategies 

Many different strategies to promote academic writing are in place in
universities in South Africa and internationally. Some staff development
centres and writing centres, such as the University of Johannesburg and the
University of the Western Cape, offer short workshops to novice writers on
specific aspects of writing such as ‘writing an abstract’ or ‘writing a winning
research proposal’. Some workshops, such as those offered by the University
of Stellenbosch, are longer and run over a week or two, dealing with topics
such as ‘writing for publication in peer-reviewed journals’. There are also
cohort groups working on post-graduate studies, and writing support groups,
both formal and informal, in which groups of peers come together to write in



210        Journal of Education, No. 66, 2016

their own time. In some well-resourced institutions professional writing
coaches and mentors are available for consultation. Many universities now
have writing centres that aim to improve the quality of students’ writing and
to stimulate critical thinking and creativity through writing There are also, in
many South African universities, specific incentives for publishing, including
payment of a portion of the government’s subsidy for research publication
into the author’s research account or into a research incentive scheme that
pays for costs associated with research, such as participating in a conference.
Finally, there are writing retreats ranging from a few days to a week or more.
Writing retreats are becoming increasingly common as a way of providing
dedicated time, space and support for writing.

In all faculties of the University some kind of writing retreat has been held
over the last few years. Retreats take various forms, from short, outsourced,
workshop-type interventions run by professional consultants, to longer
retreats for staff completing higher degrees and co-authoring papers. There
are retreats for novice writers and for experienced groups of colleagues –
usually from the same department or discipline. Not only do the aims and
composition of retreats vary but degrees of management surveillance of
writers in retreats differ considerably. Not all retreats offer a place of refuge,
or sanctuary, from the fray of the university. 

We now offer a framework for the process-oriented Centre for Learning,
Teaching and Development (CLTD) retreat.

Models of writing retreat

All writing retreats offer participants time and space to write. The question is
how time and space are conceptualised and used. Elsewhere we propose a
framework for writing retreats (Benvenuti, S., Castle, J. & Keane, M., 2013)
consisting of two prototypes: product-oriented retreats and process-oriented
retreats. Product-oriented retreats generally focus on preparing participants
to write a journal article for publication. These retreats have a pre-planned
sequence of writing sessions, with generic content, intended to transmit
knowledge, develop skills, guide and correct participants, and generate
publications. They are openly performative, designed to prepare staff to meet
the demand for increased research publication. Typically, writing skills are
taught using a prescriptive, ‘how to’ approach. Practical exercises may be



Castle and Keane: “It was an oasis in a busy life. . .       211

carried out in short bursts of time, followed by feedback and input from
language or disciplinary experts. These activities, carried out in rapid
succession, help participants complete discreet tasks, such as writing an
abstract, an introduction or a conclusion. The values of productivity,
competence, mastery, focus, discipline, management, control, and return on
investment are evident in the way these retreats are structured and taught. In
Benvenuti et al. (2013) we argue that the product-oriented writing retreat is
linked to the traditional, or autonomous, model of academic literacy (Street,
1984) and to a particular reading of communities of practice (Lave & Wenger,
1991) which positions facilitators as experts, masters, or full, legitimate
participants in a community of writers, with novice writers positioned as
apprentices, or peripheral participants in the community. 

A process-oriented retreat is based on processes and practices which aim to
establish or foster participation of a community of writers for the duration of
the retreat and possibly afterwards. A process retreat provides a space
protected from the persistent demands of the university (Grant, 2006). It aims
to provide a balance between the solitude needed to write and the social
benefits proffered by a community of writers. The structure of the retreat is
flexible, often negotiated with participants who may take on facilitator roles
from day to day. Participants are expected to exercise personal responsibility
and accountability in their writing, but surveillance and measurement are
deliberately avoided. The values of a process-oriented retreat, including
collegiality, nurturing, harmony, trust, creativity and transformation, are
reflected in the retreat’s pedagogy and structure, in which solitude and
communal activities are interspersed. In Benvenuti et al. (2013) we link the
process-oriented retreat to the ideological, or academic literacies, model of
literacy, and the development of collegial and supportive relationships. 

Literature on writing retreats in the UK and Australasia suggests that there is
a preponderance of women involved in leading and participating in writing
retreats. Women enjoy the company of other women and appreciate the
opportunity to join together in a supportive space (Grant, 2006; Grant &
Knowles, 2010; Moore et al., 2010). A supportive organisational culture may
be an important condition for them to write (Thomson & Kamler, 2013).
Furthermore, women often have more demands placed on them at home,
while at work they often bear the burden of heavy teaching and administrative
loads. Writing retreats, particularly process-oriented retreats, may help them
to ‘contain’– psychologically, physically and socially– the demands of the



212        Journal of Education, No. 66, 2016

family, community and the university for a period of time (MacLeod, Steckley
& Murray, 2013).

Nurturing the soul: Dirkx’s theory of transformative

learning 

Transformative learning, as Meriam, Caffarella & Baumgartner (2007)
suggest, has captivated educators who work in formal and nonformal contexts
for several decades. As its name suggests, transformative learning is about
change: change deeply rooted in the ways people see themselves and the
world they live in. Although there are several different types, or lenses, of
transformative learning, all transformative learning is rooted in the
constructivist principle that people learn from and with each other through
processes of experience, reflection and dialogue.
 
Dirkx (1997, 2001) proposes that meaningful learning is grounded not only in
rational, critical, and cognitive processes but in a person’s emotional,
imaginative connection with the self and the social world. He calls this
‘nurturing and caring for the soul’ or ‘soul work’. ‘Learning through the soul’
involves attending to the emotional dimensions of learning alongside the
world of ideas and intellectual tasks. Soul work provides a more holistic and
integrated way of ‘meaning-making’ than the more rational, analytic and
reflective approaches to transformative learning proposed by Mezirow (1991,
2000) or the social action agenda of Freire (1970). What makes Dirkx’s
transformative learning different from Mezirow’s is both process and
outcomes. The process is not limited to rational discourse but engages people
in opportunities to talk and listen, share stories, write texts, explore art and
music, and in so doing, people learn from and with each other (Merriam &
Bierema, 2014). 

For Dirkx, transformative learning comes about in a place of peace or ‘sacred
sanctuary’. It comes from being in touch with the surrounding social and
emotional environment, as well as through observing the wonder and mystery
of nature. It comes from listening to an inner voice, and understanding one’s
place in the bigger scheme of things. As we begin to understand ourselves
better, we deepen our relationships with others and the world around us. As
we experiment and practise together, we may rethink and change our beliefs,



Castle and Keane: “It was an oasis in a busy life. . .       213

and over time develop a different sense of identity, for example, identity as a
productive writer. 

Dirkx’s concept of transformative learning relates well to our concept of the
process-oriented writing retreat, and to a retreat held in Africa, where
interdependent, communal, holistic, and informal learning are more highly
valued than individual and autonomous learning, and where social and
cultural context shape the kind of learning that takes place (Merriam,
Caffarella & Baumgartner, 2007). 

Research design and process 

We, the authors and a colleague, began work on this article in a four-day
writing retreat that we organised for the purpose. We set up this retreat using
the design we had developed and facilitated with 107 participants in 24
retreats held between November 2011 and July 2015, but this time we
operated from the perspective of educational researchers questioning,
reflecting on and writing about the process as work-in-progress. Over the four
days of the retreat we considered what we had learnt first-hand about
participating in and facilitating retreats; what we had learnt from the literature
on research writing; what we had learned from written accounts of retreat
participants’ experiences and ideas; and what we wanted to contribute to the
scholarship of writing development.

We were attentive to the requirements of academic research. We kept a record
on flip chart sheets of our activities in the four days of the retreat. We
transcribed our free writes and early drafts of this paper, as well as mind maps
and summaries of readings. We assembled free writes and evaluations written
by previous retreat participants, given to us with their informed consent. We
engaged in reflexivity around our taken-for-granted ideas and interpretations,
and sought to expose ‘blindspots’ (Alvesson , 2003). Our use of multiple
methods, including observations, samples of our own and participants’
writing, and written evaluations completed by retreat participants, increased
the rigour of the research (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994) while creating a richer
picture of the CLTD retreat. In particular, we wanted to foreground
participants’ voices and ‘value judgements’ about the retreat (Rule & John,
2011). We sought to produce ‘worthy’ qualitative research that is ‘relevant,
timely, significant, and interesting or evocative’ (Tracy, 2010: 840).



214        Journal of Education, No. 66, 2016

We chose the case study approach to write about the CLTD retreat because of
its versatility and flexiblity, and the insights a case study provides (Merriam,
2009; Rule & John, 2011). We decided on a descriptive and evaluative case
study of the CLTD retreat using the methods of participant observation and
document analysis. As a descriptive study, we wanted to create a ‘thick
description’ of the case and the conditions that led to the form our retreat
took. In this way, the case study would have more intrinsic than instrumental
value (Rule & John, 2011). As an evaluative study we wanted to weigh up the
value or ‘worthwhileness’ of the writing retreat as a particular case
(Bassey,1999). 

We assembled the document trail we had collected from 2011 to 2015 in the
form of free writes, writing and reflection exercises, goal-setting exercises
and end-of-retreat evaluations. We used open coding to analyse the written
data, as we wanted to allow the data to ‘speak’ to us, and suggest codes.
However, as both participant observers and facilitators in the retreats, we also
brought our own codes to the data. We anticipated that we would find
evidence in the data that the retreat provided stimulation and support for
research writing. We believed that the ‘process-oriented retreat’ model could
facilitate transformative learning, and that there was credible evidence to
support our sense that the CLTD retreat could create and sustain a productive
writing space and a writing community in the high-stress environment of the
University. 

In order to avoid the trap of seeking data to confirm our most optimistic
assumptions, we reflected critically on how our understandings of the nature
and value of the retreats differed from, or were similar to, those of participants
in the retreat. We examined our own willingness to question our assumptions,
challenge entrenched ways of thinking, and consider alternatives. We
undertook dialogue and member checks with writing development experts at
the University, and presented earlier versions of this article at a national and
an international higher education conference. Finally, we made a successful
retrospective application for ethics clearance to the University’s Human
Research Ethics Committee (Education).This application allowed us to use
oral and written data collected from participants in our retreats provided
confidentiality was maintained.

We constructed the case study which appears below. Participants’ (including
facilitators’) descriptive and evaluative written comments are presented in
italic script. 



Castle and Keane: “It was an oasis in a busy life. . .       215

The case study

The case, the CLTD writing retreat, is an off-campus, residential retreat held
several times annually for 8–12 participants who have already completed a
seven-day ‘Research Writing’ course which introduces them to a wide range
of techniques, practices and strategies for creative and productive writing. It
also familiarises them with practices to foster collegial support (Badenhorst,
2007 & 2010; Castle & Keane, 2012). By the time participants commence the
retreat they are comfortable with the writing practices and level of
participation we expect of them. They are reasonably skilled in giving
feedback in a constructive and sensitive way. This enables us, as facilitators,
to run the retreat with a high level of trust, flexibility and co-operation. 

The retreat aims to provide a pleasant time and space for writing where
participants ‘withdraw from the world’ for five days to work on a project of
their choice, typically a conference paper, journal article, research proposal,
or thesis chapter. It is also a respite from pressures of work and home, an
incentive to write, and an acknowledgement of the writer-identity of
academics. It is an opportunity to refresh and extend writing skills, to receive
feedback on writing and to foster collegiality, trust and enjoyment of writing. 

Participants are more often women than men, and include experienced and
novice writers, academics of different ages, length of service, and rank, drawn
from different disciplines and fields. Participants are expected to motivate
their attendance in advance, seek permission from their line managers to
attend the retreat, set and monitor writing goals for the week, supply some of
their own materials and equipment, and regulate their time. As facilitators we
assess the motivations participants submit and are able to accept most
applicants.

The facilitators are writers with their own writing projects. Our role is to
mediate writing techniques and strategies, negotiate ground rules and ways
forward, plan the daily programme, and help participants to set meaningful
goals and to write.

The contrast between the retreat environment and the stressful working day of
an academic is captured in the free writes below:



216        Journal of Education, No. 66, 2016

In the office I am multi-tasking, multi-stressing, cutting corners, putting
out fires, giving others support, buzzing, producing. On retreat I feel
connected to the intellectual ancestors who have brought us to where we
are.

A retreat is a treat, a looked-forward-to sanctioned time-out. The retreat
space feels supportive, with . . . uninterrupted and unhurried stretches
of time. I feel acknowledged for what I have studied long to do and be: a
writer, a thinker, a teacher, an explorer. At last a free space to be
trusted to ponder, and struggle, and share, while all of life makes gentle
offerings of encouragement and care.

The retreat is held in a guesthouse in a quiet street of Melville, a suburb eight
kilometres from the commercial hub of Johannesburg where the University is
located. The guest house offers a welcome environment for writing, removed
from the pressures and distractions of the University. We chose a venue which
provided a pleasant ambiance in an attractive setting with plentiful catering to
avoid an atmosphere of privation, loneliness and anxiety often associated with
writing (Grant , 2006). The venue is not owned or operated by the University,
but is located a short distance from campus, thus avoiding lengthy and costly
transportation in and around Gauteng. 

The guesthouse is a collection of colourful houses and outbuildings, protected
by the electrified security walls and palisade gates familiar to all residents of
the city. It offers spacious bedrooms for private writing, and a large, well-lit
boardroom for communal writing, as well as a wide veranda and garden
courtyard with shady nooks for writing and consultations. The food is freshly
prepared on the premises and served in a small dining room which opens onto
an atrium and a courtyard. 

The writing day normally starts with warm-up activities designed by the
facilitators, such as free writing (Elbow, 1981), loop or generative writing
(Boice, 1990), drawing, or mind mapping, done by hand, using coloured pens
and paper, in community with others. This is followed by a discussion of
writing goals and progress towards them. Free writing has been the gathering
and beginning activity of each day in both our workshops and retreats. Free
writing for a few minutes on a given topic releases writers’ block, banishes
critical, premature editing, mobilises energy and gets words on paper
(Badenhorst , 2007, 2010). Free writes often lead to fresh ideas for the writer,
suggest new directions, and provide delight in one’s writing and the writing



Castle and Keane: “It was an oasis in a busy life. . .       217

of others. We encourage participants to read their free writes to the group (or
to smaller groups), with the caveat that a writer may opt to ‘pass’ and not read
a particular piece if s/he wishes. The focus on freewriting allows the writing
to flow uncensored. This tangential respite from the next paragraph on the
laptop gives everyone a rest and a breathing space. In listening to others’ free
writing on a variety of topics, some research related, others not, participants
discover their own voices, their unique way of making associations and
finding insights.

As part of our shared-space philosophy and anti-hierarchical collegiality, we,
as facilitators, also read out our free writes, as we do our daily writing, and
invite feedback from the group. The reading of free writing is valuable in
giving everyone an opportunity to have work received with no critical
assessment. It is writing for the intrinsic practice and pleasure of writing. 

Participants’ written reflections on writing retreats often emphasise the
quality of escape or reprieve which a process-oriented retreat provides: 

A retreat is a place of silence; silencing the press of a thousand
demands and distractions and hurts and invasions. It is a re-connection
with who I am but also who I may be. A retreat is a sacred space that
lets me be in the rhythm of striving and letting go, of a commitment to
purpose and a trust in the human struggle. 

A writing retreat is a reprieve from the impossibility of tasks that can
never be completed, from the people who can never be pleased, from
the pressures that will exhaust.

After 45–60 minutes of these group activities, writers are free to write on their
own. The balance of the morning and most of the afternoon is spent in writing
communally or in solitude, occasionally in consultation with a facilitator or
another writer. Some writers choose to remain in the board room, others go to
their rooms, or choose a quiet place to set up their laptops. 

A retreat is a place of solitude and has a different rhythm from the
ever-busy day.

When I am alone I meet myself in all my moods and sometimes we sit
together quietly grumbling, and sometimes we sit as One contented, at
ease and free. It is from this place of steadiness and spaciousness that I



218        Journal of Education, No. 66, 2016

run out of the usual words and falter for a new step . . . and sometimes
the path opens up and sometimes I wait patiently in solitude.

Perhaps a different rhythm is what writing is about. Perhaps the flow
and melody and beat are linked to the music of where I am, like a line
in the orchestral score, finding my part in the structure and form. At
some point I give up composing and slip into being composed: finding
my place in the discourse of ideas past and to come.

In the late afternoon, writers converge in the conference room in small groups
and take turns to read to one another excerpts from the day’s writing. Writers
are prompted to ask for the specific feedback they want. We encourage
writers to give constructive, non-judgemental, but specific and critical
feedback to other writers to build the culture of mutual respect, trust and
cooperation. The feedback session often fuels a short burst of revision before
or after dinner for many writers.

In anonymous, written evaluations completed on the last day of the retreat,
writers made the following comments about the location and ambiance of the
retreat:

I love the quiet atmosphere at [the guesthouse] the tasteful, calm,
private spaces and the gardens, which give the impression you are out
of Joburg.

The place is quite spacious, well-lit and furnished. There is life in the
flowers and trees, birds. Tranquility coupled with fresh air- away from
pollution. The buildings are welcoming – warm and roomy – good to
work in. 

This is a great venue. The place is quiet and beautiful. I like that I
could work in the conference room, in my room and even outside. This
freedom has its own way of enhancing creativity. 

The facilitators were described as ‘warm and resourceful leaders’, as
‘mentors, coaches, facilitators, listeners, and constructive critics’. They
provided ‘gentle support and wisdom’ as well as encouragement. One writer
observed that “much thought has gone into the design of the retreat”.



Castle and Keane: “It was an oasis in a busy life. . .       219

Both [facilitators] were incredibly generous with their contributions, X
stretched my writing wonderfully in the early morning warm up
sessions.

I found Y’s advice extremely useful. She helped me sort out a problem I
had been grappling with for months. 

Concerning writing exercises at the beginning of each day, most participants
observed that they were generative and helped to solve problems of feeling
blocked or unable to write:

Learning and reflection exercises at the start of each day taught me a
lot about how I work with and against writing and helped me identify
areas for improvement. . .

The exercises . . . provoked thinking, writing and [reflection] in ways
and on levels we do not easily engage in every day.

However, at least two individuals in one retreat did not enjoy the energising and
creative writing activities we had planned. One participant asked that the
activities be limited to no more than 30 minutes per day, and restricted to
research-related writing activities. Another complained that she did not need the
‘dummy exercises’ she was asked to participate in. She said she had no
inhibitions or blocks preventing her from writing. Surprisingly, given their
criticisms, both participants applied for a place on future retreats and participated
in communal writing activities with no further ado.

Concerning the giving and receiving of feedback, participants said:

I found it a great privilege to be getting feedback every day, both
formally and informally. I have also learned a lot from listening to and
having to give feedback to colleagues.

I enjoyed contributing to others’ research through feedback sessions.

I received invaluable feedback from my group.

Only very rarely did participants remark that they might have benefited more
from feedback given by an expert in their discipline. 



220        Journal of Education, No. 66, 2016

Most people here do not have a background in [my discipline]. They
don’t understand the arguments I make or the authors I refer to.

Few writers met the ambitious goals they had set for themselves for the five
days of the retreat, but most ‘made headway’ or ‘got close’. Several writers
observed that they made ‘substantive completion of goals’ and that they now
had ‘stimulation’ and ‘a framework’ or ‘a plan’ in place to complete them:

[The retreat] was a breakthrough for me as I have been avoiding my
own research writing for some time. It provided the space and support
for me to articulate some of my writing goals and arguments and to
identify key areas to focus on (not to feel overwhelmed). 

I was able to meet my goal of completing a conference paper and had a
number of useful insights regarding the theoretical framework of my
paper.

A returning writer observed that

It has been a privilege to attend my third writing retreat/course with
this team and I find I have built on the ideas each time.

Another commented

The retreats are really valuable – in terms of productivity and personal
identity development as an academic. Please continue using this
format. I suspect it is especially helpful in develop[ing] women
academics.

In summary, writers valued the retreats because they provided space to
regenerate; ‘ring-fenced’ time away from work to think, read and write;
discursive space; and an ambiance conducive to writing. They fostered
collegiality and mutual respect among writers, and delight in learning about
and from other disciplines. This is over and above the practices, strategies and
skills developed in the retreat. 



Castle and Keane: “It was an oasis in a busy life. . .       221

Reflection and discussion

What difference do retreats make, and to whom do they make a difference?
As a process-oriented retreat, the CLTD retreat provides time and space for
writers to work and think, to create and enjoy writing in solitude and
community. It balances the demanding work of writing with the need to
provide a safe and supportive community in which the vulnerabilities of being
a writer can be addressed (Murray, 2009). This makes a difference to
academics, many of them women, who may feel isolated and inadequate in the
high-stress, competitive and driven environment of the University.

As in the case of writing groups described by Aitchison & Lee (2006), Lee &
Boud (2003), and Dwyer, Lewis, Macdonald and Burns (2012) we propose
that a process-oriented writing retreat, such as the CLTD retreat, enhances
feelings of ‘mutuality’ (togetherness, reciprocity) and ‘identity’. It builds
community among participating writers. It nurtures the soul, and provides
sanctuary, in the true sense of ‘retreat’. Participants attest that the retreat
provides “support ”, “listening” “trust ” and “a stimulating environment ”.
They feel able to talk about their issues and problems with writing. They are
free to make their own decisions about how to use the time and space
provided in the retreat. These process-oriented retreats foster the desire to
build and sustain scholarly activity and writer identity.

While many retreats, including product-oriented retreats, claim to foster
collegial development, the CLTD retreat accommodates only a small number
of academics, and this may strengthen the sharing and warmth achieved in the
retreat. Returning writers are welcomed. Writers socialise and learn from one
another without the struggles over power, authority and status which often
characterise academic events in which senior academics often over-ride
attempts by others to introduce an alternative culture – a more respectful,
constructive and cooperative culture. These forms of collegiality are fast
disappearing from the university environment. The CLTD retreat actively and
consciously promotes collegiality in defiance of the current trend to
competitiveness, isolation and autonomy.

We suggest that process-oriented writing retreats which ‘nurture the soul’ are
vital in the contemporary academic climate that pushes academics to think of
writing as a product rather than a pleasure (Dwyer et al. 2012). This is
particularly the case in the high stress urban environment of the University.



Castle and Keane: “It was an oasis in a busy life. . .       225

Street, B. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Thomson, P. & Kamler, B. (2013). Writing for peer reviewed journals:
Strategies for getting published. London and New York: Routledge.

Tracy, S.J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent
qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851.

University Review. (2014). Journal published by the Alumni Association of
the University. Johannesburg: The University.

Jane Castle
School of Education
University of the Witwatersrand

jane.castle@wits.ac.za

Moyra Keane
School of Education
University of the Witwatersrand

moyra.keane@wits.ac.za