Research Spotlight: Why Peer Feedback Matters in Doctoral Writing Groups

The article featured in this spotlight asks what happens when that moment becomes shared rather than solitary. Instead of treating feedback as a one-way transfer from supervisor to student, “Learning together through collaborative writing: The power of peer feedback and discussion in doctoral writing groups” examines a writing group whose members wrote, read, discussed and revised work together as part of an academic book project.

We spoke with the authors, Dr. Basil Cahusac de Caux of Kuwait University and Dr. Lynette Pretorius of Monash University, to learn more about collaborative peer feedback in doctoral writing groups. Their article shows that writing groups can become more than spaces for polishing text. They can become communities where doctoral students build confidence, feedback literacy, academic identity and a clearer understanding of how scholarly writing works.

Doctoral education often asks students to master practices that are rarely explained in full. Publishing, receiving critique, developing a scholarly voice and responding to reviewer comments can feel like hidden rituals rather than teachable skills. This article matters because it shows how peer communities can make those practices more visible, less intimidating and more humane.

For institutions and supervisors, the study points to a practical lesson. Safe doctoral writing groups can help students learn by reading one another’s work, discussing feedback openly and discovering that their struggles are shared. Dr. Pretorius reflected on the broader significance of the study: “The research demonstrates that doctoral education does not need to be a solitary journey. Learning from each other through collaborative practices helps students develop a sense of belonging. This is important because that helps them start to see themselves as future scholars.”

The article also speaks to researchers beyond education. Any field that relies on complex qualitative writing can benefit from spaces where interpretation, critique and revision are treated as collaborative learning rather than private performance.

The article develops five interconnected themes, which together show how peer feedback can shape both writing and academic belonging. Three contributions stand out for a broader audience.

• Peer feedback helped build community. Participants discovered that everyone had a different story, yet many experienced similar challenges during doctoral study. The themes “same, same, but different” and “I am not alone” show how reading peers’ writing helped participants feel less isolated and more connected to a shared academic journey.
• Giving feedback was as important as receiving it. By looking closely at one another’s drafts, participants learned about paragraphing, academic vocabulary, argument building, critical writing and different ways to structure a narrative. One participant captured the affective reality of this process by saying, “writing is really hard, but finding a good friend who knows you and always listens to you is very important.”
• The book project made hidden academic practices visible. Through writing chapters, reviewing drafts and discussing feedback, participants learned about academic publishing as an experiential process. The article shows that this kind of learning can develop feedback literacy, reflective practice, confidence and a stronger scholarly voice.

Together, these findings suggest that doctoral writing support is not only about improving sentences. It is also about creating conditions where students can see academic writing as learnable, relational and shared. Dr. Pretorius reflected on what surprised her most: “For me, the most important and interesting finding from the study was that these types of collaborative experiences provide students with more than just skills development. Doctoral writing is a part of how PhD students develop their identities as scholars. By providing them with opportunities to share and learn from each other, they discovered the hidden curriculum of doctoral education.”

The study was situated within a constructivist paradigm and used communities of practice as its guiding theoretical framework. It drew on data from a wider mixed methods project on PhD student wellbeing, focusing here on open-ended survey responses from participants who took part in, or reflected on, a collaborative academic book project. The study included 29 PhD students from a large research-intensive university in Australia, most of them from social science disciplines, as well as reflections from the two authors, who were editors, chapter authors and feedback providers in the book project.

The authors analysed the qualitative survey responses and their own editor reflections using reflexive thematic analysis. They coded the data inductively from participants’ responses and deductively through the communities of practice framework, then discussed and refined themes to tell the story of the data. Survey responses to one participation question were quantified to identify how many participants acted as authors or peer reviewers, but the main analytic focus was interpretive and qualitative.

After the authors had familiarised themselves with the dataset, coded the responses and reflections, discussed their codes and refined their themes, they trialled Evidano to gain a different perspective on the key ideas in the editors’ reflections.

The article does not present Evidano as the method itself or as a substitute for reflexive thematic analysis. Instead, Evidano was used as an additional comparative lens within a researcher-led process. The authors retained responsibility for interpretation, analysis, theme development and scholarly judgement.

The article states that “our AI analysis further helped to demonstrate the trustworthiness of our coding strategy,” because it highlighted key ideas similar to those of the themes the authors had constructed.

Dr. Pretorius also noted how AI tools can support careful research workflows when used responsibly: “As someone who researches AI literacy, it is important to note that AI tools can support your research, but they are not there to do the research for you. In this study, we tested Evidano to illuminate any unconscious biases we may have had about our data, given that both of us had been involved in doctoral writing groups for many years. As qualitative researchers, we must stay deeply engaged with our data, and we are responsible for constructing the themes that are included in the final paper. When we did this study, we were surprised that the themes Evidano suggested were similar to the themes we had already constructed. For the peer reviewers, this was evidence of the trustworthiness of our coding approach, but for me it sparked my interest in how AI could be embedded in the process of data analysis to enhance researcher reflexivity. This led to some of my most recent AI literacy work, which showed that, when used ethically and responsibly, AI tools can encourage qualitative researchers to use their higher-order thinking, reflect on their theoretical assumptions, and more deeply engage with their data.”

For doctoral education, the article offers a hopeful but practical message. Writing groups can help students learn the craft of academic writing while also addressing the emotional dimensions of feedback. When critique happens in a safe, dialogic and collegial environment, feedback can become less like judgement and more like shared inquiry.

For researchers and research leaders, the study also suggests that feedback literacy should be treated as part of academic identity development. Learning how to interpret, give and use feedback is not simply a technical skill. It helps students understand their place within scholarly communities. Dr. Cahusac de Caux offered a takeaway for readers: “The doctoral journey can be made to feel less overwhelming and isolated if you seek out like-minded scholars and peers who are willing to dedicate some time every other week to discuss and critique your research. Whether you are at the start or the end of your PhD, joining an academic writing group can benefit you in a variety of ways — from finding your scholarly voice through to strengthening your arguments.”

At a time when academic writing is increasingly shaped by collaboration, publication pressure and new AI-assisted workflows, the article reminds us that tools and processes are most valuable when they support human judgement, care and community. Collaborative peer feedback does not remove the difficulty of doctoral writing, but it can make that difficulty shared, teachable and transformative.