Respons som verktyg i skrivandet : En jämförande studie av litteratur och praktik i högskolekurser i kreativt skrivande

Sammanfattning

This study is about response in university courses in creative writing. Three different universities are the main subjects in this study based on syllabuses, course platforms and two texts from each course’s required literature in relation to the subject of response. Due to the variation in both the amount and content of the required course literature, a limited number of texts were considered appropriate for this analysis. The courses that the study compares correspond to B- and C-level courses in the Swedish education system at Umeå University, Malmö University and Luleå University of Technology. Roz Ivanič and Sofia Pulls’s framework on writing discourses is used to examine how response is represented and enacted in the course material. This study explores differences in views on response between authors of general writing manuals and texts produced within, or for, an educational context. Creative writing courses at Swedish universities can function as a community for writers. However, while response is presented as a pedagogical tool, its impact on authors’ independent writing practices and long-term text development remains contested. This study focuses on three questions: How is the use of response described in syllabi, textbooks and course instructions in creative writing courses? What similarities and differences are highlighted between different institutions regarding response practices and how do these relate to the perspectives expressed by authors in the course literature? What writing discourses emerge in the descriptions of response and how are they applied? The material shows a clear distinction between texts on response written specifically for educational purposes and those in which authors reflect on response as part of their own writing process. In addition, giving response is presented as more central to the response process than receiving it. Although principles for formulating response are described, these practices are rarely followed up with feedback on the response itself.