Purpose

 

The purpose of this study is to track and analyze the impact of receiving a rejection on emerging fiction writers in order to better understand writing development. Rejection, namely in the form of a rejection letter sent by the editor, is a staple in the publishing world. Research has highlighted that a writer’s work will be rejected more often than it is accepted (e.g., Day 2011; Edwards et al. 2022; Opthof 2000). Writers, therefore, are constantly having to deal with rejection. Yet, despite rejection having a constant presence amongst writers, it is a subject that writers often neglect to discuss which leaves writers isolated and without much guidance when faced with rejection (Day 2011; Fürst 2016; Horn 2016; Munley 1996). Research that has broken the silence surrounding rejection mainly focuses on how rejection generates negative social and individual consequences ranging from discouragement, to anger, to isolation (Conn 2016; Day 2011; Skaggs 2019). Researchers also spend time presenting advice on handling and overcoming the negative effects of rejection (e.g., Daft 1995; Woolley and Barron 2009). However, the experience of rejection is a highly individual moment, and the resulting advice often varies depending on the writer and their individual motivations and background (Conn 2016; Fagan 1990).

 

Additionally, current research mostly bases its findings on data gathered from experienced scholarly writers or editors who are reflecting on their holistic experience with rejection and have often already received several acceptances or accolades throughout their career (e.g., Conn 2016; Day 2011; Edwards et al. 2022). Therefore, there needs to be more research on rejection as novices first receive it and not years after the fact.

 

While there has been a study by Henrik Fürst (2016) that follows aspiring fiction writers and rejection, his study primarily looks at the mental states and tensions writer’s move through following an instance of rejection which parallels research looking at academic writing rejection scenarios (e.g., Day 2011). Consequently, research on rejection happening to emerging creative fiction writers as they receive rejections over time and its effects on their writing processes and development alongside their mental states is overlooked. Essentially, there is a need for more research surrounding rejection’s impact on the writing itself in association with a writer’s mental state as it happens over time. Furthermore, as Fürst’s (2016) study points out, the influence of acceptance on a writer’s response to rejection during one’s writing development is also under-researched.

 

Knowing that rejection can have negative psychological impacts on writers and is an experience many writers will undergo, it is important to understand how emerging writers grapple with rejection amongst varying social and individual influences (e.g., motivation, passion, acceptance, despondence, and community support) throughout their writing process and development.

 

Thus, this study will be driven by the following research questions:

 

RQ1: How do emerging fiction writers react right after receiving a rejection? What happens to their writing process following receiving a rejection? How do these responses change over time as they continue to receive rejections?

 

RQ2: What role do social and individual factors play in how emerging writers handle rejection and how does this change over time?

 

RQ3: If a writer receives an acceptance, how does this influence their relationship with rejection? How does the interaction of acceptance and rejection impact writing development?

 

Methods

 

To best answer these questions, a case-study methodology will be implemented. As mentioned before, rejection is found to be an individual experience. As such, a case-study that looks at several individual writers will recognize this inherently specialized nature of rejection. By focusing on the individual, I’ll be able to richly observe their reactions to rejections while also uncovering a holistic understanding of rejection as the individual continues to develop as a writer. Additionally, since this project aims to look at rejection as it impacts writing development, a case-study approach allows for this long-term procedure. Although case-studies are not typically generalizable and their reliability and validity are often questioned, I hope to overcome these setbacks by (1) using multiple data strategies, (2) cross-checking all the data, and (3) looking at writers that write similar material. This will reduce researcher bias and maintain consistency in the findings.

 

For this case-study, I’ll be observing four emerging fiction writers who all write similar material (e.g., fantasy or science fiction) and have yet to receive either an acceptance or rejection for their work in the publishing industry. These participants will be recruited from a creative writing MFA program. The MFA program indicates writers who are committed to their craft and are just beginning to entirely focus on their writing career and getting their writing published. This case-study will take place during the entirety of the participants MFA program and beyond depending on how their reactions to rejection and its effect on their writing development keep changing or begin to stabilize. Thus, it will cover at least a 2-to-3-year period while allowing for additional follow-ups. The flexible time-scope recognizes the individual development and responses of each writer alongside the wait-period that can take months between sending in a submission and receiving a response. It also allows for multiple rejection scenarios to occur instead of just one isolated event especially since this study is all about writing development and how rejection influences it over time.

 

To collect data, this case-study will involve interviews, logs kept by the participants, and an analysis of documents as detailed below.

 

Interviews:

 

Conducting interviews will help give insight into the participants' background and their response to the rejections they receive. Interviews will be conducted periodically to keep track of the participants' development as they move through moments of rejection and/or instances of acceptance. Specifically, an interview will be conducted (1) before the participant sends out their manuscript for publishing consideration, (2) after they have sent it out for consideration and are waiting to get the results back, (3) after they have received the rejection and/or acceptance. Additionally, follow-up interviews will occur after each rejection has been received to gauge how the writer is doing after 2 days, 4 days, 1 week, and then 2 weeks following the rejection. With this before, during, and after approach, I will be able to get an understanding of the participants' state-of-mind as they go through this rejection process.

 

The types of questions I will ask during these interviews will be the same (but with enough flexibility for follow-up or clarification questions) across each participant to maintain consistency and will cover topics ranging from their emotional response, how they see themselves moving forward, how their writing process has been impacted, to how they interpret the contents of the rejection (or acceptance) letter itself especially if feedback is given. Questions formulated around these themes and others will give insight into how each writer is mentally handling rejection (or acceptance) and how their writing has been influenced moving forward.

 

To analyze the transcripts of these interviews, I will code the data for themes and see how these themes differ or are consistent across each case. I will also have a second opinion to overcome any research bias.

 

Logs:

 

To supplement the interview data, the participants will record their own individual logs to keep track of their own perceived behavior surrounding their writing and rejection (or acceptance). The logs will be set up like a journal with the participants asked to record the date and time as they make an entry. Participants will start a log the day they receive their rejection/acceptance and continue making entries up to 2 weeks following the notice. This time frame for the logs was selected to minimize an overwhelming number of entries due to the fact that this study occurs over several years and daily entries would be too much. Additionally, the participants may receive multiple rejections over the course of the study that can be analyzed for patterns. Thus, it is better to analyze data focused around each moment of rejection rather than shift through hundreds of irrelevant entries.

 

When it comes to making each entry, participants will be asked to think about their lingering thoughts about rejection and/or acceptance alongside what writing they accomplished that day and how they felt it went. Like the interviews, these logs will be coded by me for themes across each case and will receive a second opinion from assistants to balance out any bias.

 

Documents:

 

Each participant will be asked to provide copies of each rejection and/or acceptance letter they receive over the course of the case-study. These letters would be analyzed for their structure and wording to better understand the writer's experience of reading it and how the genre impacts the writer's response to each rejection. Additionally, document samples of the participants’ manuscripts and/or drafts before and after the rejection has been received would be needed in order to analyze how the rejection has influenced their writing development.

 

Recognizing Limitations:

 

All data collected will undergo cross-checks with an external auditor and/or assistants to ensure that the study maintains its reliability and validity. I recognize that by using methods such as interviews and logs I am risking the authenticity of my participant’s responses. Essentially, by constantly prompting my participants to think about rejection, their reactions may be less accurate since they will be more conscious of their actions in ways they otherwise would not be. Despite this, interviews and logs remain the best method to gain insight into a participant’s mindset since it is their individual experience and no one else’s. Yet, by analytically looking at the documents and gathering data across multiple writers, I will ensure that my findings are based on triangulated data and are therefore not heavily reliant on one source.

 

This case-study will involve detailed descriptions of the individuals studied in order to provide context in which to discuss rejection and how it both influences and is influenced throughout an emerging writer’s development. The interviews, logs, and documents are the key to gaining a holistic view of rejection across each individual case.

 

Deliverables

 

As data is collected and analyzed, I will produce:

• An interim and final research report to the CCCC Executive Committee.

• Research articles submitted to various writing communication journals.

• Multiple conference presentations to share the results.

• Public scholarship geared towards aspiring writers and graduate MFA instructors. Since this study is geared towards emerging writers, it is important to ensure that they and any writing instructors have access to the findings. Therefore, I plan on having public scholarship like the following:

  • Brief interview-based or synthesis articles in Inside Higher Ed, the Chronicle, Writer’s Digest, and elsewhere. This includes a wide range of publications to reach both writers and instructors.

  • Instructional materials for educators with the goal of helping them prepare emerging writers about rejection in the publishing industry and its impact on their writing development.

 

Budget

 

For this study, I am requesting $8,720 of the maximum $10,000 offered by the grant program. Since I will be taking substantial time from four participants to collect data over the course of about three years, I will compensate them $1,500 each for a total of $6,000 as shown in the chart below. To efficiently transcribe the many interviews I will be conducting, I will use Otter.ai, a transcription service that costs $720 over a three-year period. Additionally, to help cross-check and code the data, I will recruit two assistants to analyze and review my findings. Each assistant will be paid $25 per hour for the work they produce. With this budget outlined below, I would be able to fairly compensate the individuals who will help put this study together.