**5. What is 'publishable'?**

Interestingly, the idea that students should be creating publishable work is one that is deeply held in the field. However, exactly what publishable means is contested, as can be observed in Munden's [27] study. A key term of assessment used by educators in the field is that the work created by a student should be of publishable quality. In the US context, the aim of the MFA is to produce students who can create a publishable book-length submission for their final academic assessment [31]. This view is not unique to the United States. In 2000, the AAWP initiated a programme of state-based seminars, the first of which were held in Adelaide and Melbourne. These seminars involved many of the writing teachers in each state, from the TAFE and University sectors. Topics discussed included 'publishability' and 'publishable standard' [32]. In the United Kingdom in 2013, Cusk [33] reported that work should be 'of publishable standard'. As the 'Subject Association for Creative Writing' in the United Kingdom, the NAWE [34], rather than providing an overall guideline like the Association of Writers & Writing Programs (AWP), presents an outline of what various programmes offer. In this, some courses do state that they aim for publishing outcomes. Others do not indicate whether this is a focus.

Discussion about the term publishable often does not provide clarity as to whether the work will actually be published, and this is a concern to some in the field. In 1999, Dawson [35] argued that a creative component of publishable quality is a work that will withstand the same critical assessment applied to the cannon of literature. In 2005, Dawson [36] contended that the postgraduate student's submission must hold to this standard. This approach does not indicate whether the work will be published. Bourke and Neilsen [37] expressed this concern about unpublished work being assessed and go on to demonstrate that few students at the time of submitting their final projects have achieved this standard or publication. Some seek to address the issue, but there is no one approach. Kroll [38] wrestled with what the term publishable means and challenges the resistance to marketplace preparation. She wants more transparency of the term and proposes either including an assessor from the industry (such as an editor or agent) on an examination committee or having a non-academic who looks for what sells to supply a report to examiners, particularly when the examiner is not well published. Harper [39] considers publishability an out-of-date standard for assessment.

The term continues to be the standard of evaluation, as Boyd [40] reveals when examining the issue of what publishable quality is in creative writing doctorate outcomes from 1993 to 2008 in Australia. Boyd concludes that publishable is still the main method used for evaluation. Her findings also reveal that universities focus on literary creative work that is not as publishable. This further demonstrates a resistance to commercial marketplace outcomes. Boyd seeks to negotiate an alternative in proposing that more popular genres should be given recognition within higher education, and this can be done by reframing the terms used. Krauth [41] notes that Boyd's study demonstrates the publishable nature of creative work developed in programmes because nearly half of the creative works that Boyd assessed in her research did reach the marketplace in some fashion. This analysis indicates that publishing does matter.

Publishing is not just a measure of what students should aim for; publication is valued and is used as a measurement of programme success. Edmonds [42] considers a shelf of published books displayed at the University of Adelaide as a sign of a high standard of success. However, he is careful to point out that publishing is not the only

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

outcome from the training and programme. Further, he advises, the current situation is very different to the 1970s when validation came from a few readers. Edmonds argues that in the modern marketplace validation may still be small and localised within academic publishing discourse. He does not want to see a shift to commercialisation for validation. Edmonds [43] also argues the importance of a certain type of narrow market print journal that can provide marketplace outcomes, but does not believe that outcome is necessary for every student. Negotiation of the marketplace can and does come in the form of developing and supporting outlets for publication such as small presses and literary journals and through efforts to recognise and value these publications in the field. Now that many journals are digitally published, this raises questions about the effect on a student's relationship to the marketplace.

Some researchers demonstrate concern about focusing on the idea of publishing and valuing any commodity outcome over the creative act itself. Harper [44] proposes that whether the work is published or publishable is not more valuable than other undertakings in creative practice. Harper is not alone in this view. Others consider that despite the 'publishable' issue, creative writing education is about something else. There are more ways that the field demonstrates resistance to a focus on the marketplace, and these are found in other terms that are used.
