**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, 77–79] 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 'practiceoriented 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].

#### *Creative Writing in Higher Education: A Literature Review of the Marketplace Relationship DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109427*

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.
