**4. Teachers' perspectives**

The teachers' perspectives of students' views provide additional insight into the complex relationship. The teachers expressed concern that students had illusions regarding publishing and marketplace expectations. In 1994, Haake [21] argued that these marketplace misconceptions are encouraged by American creative writing programmes and are problematic, particularly at the postgraduate level. In 1998, in Australia, Kroll [8] expressed concern for students who want writing careers. She contends that, although most undergraduates do not expect to make money from writing, a few do expect to make money but have no plans on how to achieve this outcome.

Other researchers contend that students are undertaking creative writing courses for non-financial reasons. In a 2000 interview with Brien [22], Gutkind argued that students cannot explain why they are studying. In 2007, in the Australian context, Krauth and Webb [23] emphasised that more students are entering programmes to learn how to write, not to be published authors. Yet, in 2010, in the United Kingdom, Roe [24] contended that being published is the goal for students at the BA and MA level. They want to write and publish novels even if that outcome is a massive challenge. In the same year in the United States, Moxley [25] contended students want success, but most will fail to achieve that outcome.

The view of ambitious students fits with student expectations described by Chapman [26]. He argues that many students seek to publish and make money. However, Chapman does not conclude that the students will fail. Chapman claims that the relationship of creative writing in higher education and aiming for the mass market can work, and it's what students want.

Chapman sees no reason why mass market and literary work cannot both be taught. This view challenges Haake's [21] concern expressed 20 years earlier of false expectations. Chapman's approach requires authors to examine their aesthetic and

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

question their goals. He states that there still is no quick fix. Rather than perceiving the outcome as failure, this perspective has the student committing to the reality of a long journey to reach a marketplace outcome.

The only empirical study in which teachers' views of students were included was conducted in the United Kingdom. Munden [27] investigates the changing nature of creative writing at 27 universities over the previous 10 years and considers the future of creative writing. Although the marketplace relationship is not the direct focus of his research, the study does offer some insights on this matter. For example, teachers report that student expectations do not align with what is being taught and what teachers can actually do offer to students. The study shows that publishing outcomes do ultimately matter to some in the university, but there is no clarification as to whether or in what way, students are supported to be entrepreneurial or supported in finding marketplace outcomes.

There are other findings in the report from which conclusions might be drawn. The view that students are keen for visiting and published writer interaction could indicate that students are seeking role models, both in creative and academic publishing. Additionally, the study reports that students believe a degree will lead to employment or a published work, but teachers say they do not imply such outcomes when they teach. This discrepancy raises the question as to whether it represents a failure of the programmes. However, it hardly seems a failure in that creative writing programmes continue to enrol and retain students. Alternatively, the issue may be that students' expectations of reaching the marketplace (i.e. being published) are not the goals of the educators, as Munden's [27] study might indicate. Arguably students should be more selective when choosing creative writing programmes. The issue of selectivity is significant enough to motivate Earnshaw [28] to develop *The handbook of creative writing*. Earnshaw argues that there is no one standard for creative writing programmes, and he aims to help students navigate the path. A few universities do offer publishing-focused programmes [29]. However, this is not common for most creative writing programmes.

More questions were raised in 2016 about students' views of the marketplace relationship in Creative Writing Pedagogy [30], a private group on Facebook comprised primarily of creative writing instructors in higher education. Anna Leahy and Stephanie Vanderslice, both leaders in the field in the United States, manage the forum. The conversations offer a useful insight into current views and approaches to pedagogy. In this discussion of the marketplace relationship, Leahy, after reading that creative writing students felt tricked by their programmes and training, asked how teachers can talk to students about the marketplace issues without disheartening them. As a teacher in the field of poetry, Leahy's experience was that neither she nor her students think they will make money from their writing. Vanderslice tells her students that they will need another source of income. This raised two questions from Leahy: Did students believe this? And, what were other instructors telling their students? A handful of educators responded with their own experiences of trying to teach students to be pragmatic. Anecdotally, Leahy found that today's students do not have the skills, experience or understanding about the realities of publishing outcomes. In addition, Leahy wondered if things had changed and if so why students did not now understand the uphill challenge. She wondered if the university model of what a degree means had changed how students viewed their experience.

Some of the terms used by the field offer further insight into the complex nature of the marketplace relationship and the resistances that students must negotiate.
