Speaker: David I. Hanauer @DHanauer
Affiliation: Indiana University of Pennsylvania & University of Pittsburgh
Title: Processes of Discovery in Autoethnographic and Imaginary Poetry Writing
Abstract (long version below): This study extends prior research into the processes of self-discovery (defined as cognitive insight and emotional clarity) through writing by considering the differences between autoethnographic and imaginary poetry writing. Participants were randomly assigned to either an autoethnographic or imaginary poetry condition involving a two-stage writing task (freewriting elicitation and revision). Data was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA with one grouping variable (autoethnographic/Imaginary) and two dependent variables (Cognitive Insight and Emotional Clarity). Results revealed a significant three-way interaction. This reflects a difference for the conditions between the elicitation and revision stages and for each of the measures.
Long abstract
Prior research has shown that writing can have a facilitative effect on well-being. One explanation of this outcome is the ability of writing to provide personal insight and self-discovery. However, while there is broad agreement over the power of writing to provide insight, the psychological processes which underpin this are less well researched. Within the field of writing research, the most advanced theoretical position has been proposed by Galbraith & Baijeen (2018). They propose that there are two different processes through which self-discovery in writing occurs: 1) A fast, effortless transfer and generation of text from an implicit, episodic knowledge (termed the Knowledge Constituting process); & 2) A slow, engaged process of the evaluation, revision and manipulation of text to achieve rhetorical goals (termed the Knowledge Transforming process).
Poetry writing provides a particularly interesting genre for exploring processes of self-discovery. The process of poetry writing has been shown to involve two sequential writing processes: a free-flowing, associative process of text generation and a reflective, engaged process of poetic-text revision (Hanauer, 2010, 2021, 2022; Lui et al., 2015; Peskin & Ellenbogen, 2019) which reflect very closely the dual routes to discovery specified by Galbraith & Baijeen (2018). Prior research on the writing processes of poetry that lead to enhanced insight and emotional clarity, has suggested that it is only the free-flowing process of knowledge constitution that leads to increased self-understanding (Hanauer, 2022). The second writing process of image selection and poetry revision were not seen to add to the levels of insight and emotional clarity that were elicited.
To date, research on the processes of self-discovery in poetry writing was limited to the genre of autoethnographic poetry. However, the majority of poetry writing is creative and imaginary and not autoethnographic. In this study the genre of imaginative poetry writing was added to the original research design proposed and tested by Hanauer (2022).The research question for this study is: Are there differences in the levels of insight and emotional clarity between the conditions of autoethnographic and imaginary poetry at the text generation and revision stages of writing?
60 participants from freshman writing courses at three different US universities were randomly assigned to either an autoethnographic or imaginary poetry writing condition. The writing process for both the autoethnographic and the imaginary conditions consisted of a two-stage imagistic poetry writing task involving an initial freewriting elicitation task followed by a revision and image writing task (Hanauer, 2010, 2021, 2022). The only difference between the two conditions was that for the autobiographic condition participants were asked to choose a meaningful experience they had where as in the imaginary condition they were asked to choose an experience they would like to have that they had never had. Measurement related to processes of self-discovery and included cognitive insight scales (Grant, Franklin & Langford, 2002) and emotional clarity scales (Gratz & Roemer, 2004). Prior to usage all scales had been checked for psychometric validity and have been used in prior studies looking at self-discovery in writing (Hanauer, 2022). Measurement for both scales were collected after the elicitation stage and after the revision stage in a pre-post, 2 condition design with random assignment. Following the checking of initial statistical assumptions, the data was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA with one grouping variable (autoethnographic/Imaginary) and two dependent variables (Cognitive Insight and Emotional Clarity).
Results revealed a significant three-way interaction between all three variables. This result reflects a difference in the patterns of responses for autoethnographic and imaginary poetry writing between the elicitation and revision stages and for each of the measures. The pattern for autoethnographic poetry is reminiscent of prior research (Hanauer, 2022) with initial high levels of insight and emotional clarity following the elicitation stage and then a decrease following the revision stage. In autoethnographic poetry writing there is a significant decrease for insight following the revision stage; for emotional clarity there is a slight non-significant decrease following the revision stage. The pattern for imaginary writing is reversed to that of autoethnographic poetry writing. Initial levels of insight and emotional clarity at the elicitation stage are significantly lower than those of autoethnographic poetry writing. However, following the revision stage there is a significant increase in both the insight and emotional clarity scales. Overall, the results demonstrate that for autoethnographic poetry writing, it is the elicitation stage that directs the process of self-discovery; but for imaginary writing it is the revision stage that directs a process of self-discovery. The ramifications of these results on writing for well-being and creative writing will be discussed at the presentation.
References
Galbraith, D., & Baaijen, V. M. (2018). The work of writing: Raiding the inarticulate. Educational Psychologist, 53(4), 238–257.
Grant, A.M., Franklin, J. & Langford, P. (2002). The self-reflection and insight scale: A new measure of private self-consciousness. Social Behavior and Personality, 30(8), 821-836.
Gratz, K.L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional Assessment of Emotion Regulation and Dysregulation: Development, Factor Structure, and Initial Validation of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26, 41-54.
Hanauer, D. (2010). Poetry as Research: Exploring Second Language Poetry Writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hanauer, D. (2021). Poetic writing research: the history, methods, and outcomes of poetic (auto) ethnography. In D. Kuiken and A. Jacobs (Eds. Handbook of Empirical Literary Studies pp.412-448. Berlin; Boston, MA: De Gruyter.
Hanauer, D. (2022). The writing processes underpinning wellbeing: Insight and emotional clarity in poetic autoethnography and freewriting. Frontiers in Communication.
Liu, S., Erkkinen, M. G., Healey, M. L., Xu, Y., Swett, K. E., Chow, H. M., et al. (2015). Brain activity and connectivity during poetry composition: toward a multidimensional model of the creative process. Hum. Brain Mapp. 36, 3351–3372.
Peskin, J., and Ellenbogen, B. (2019). Cognitive processes while writing poetry: an expert-novice study. Cogn. Instruct. 37, 232–251.