We are all linked to the Gender, Migration, and Madness project by mutual interest, but definitely have varying levels of proficiency in the sources materials and methodologies that comprise the work related to all the different sub-topics: colonial medicine, digital humanities, mental illness, the Irish in early Canada, discourse analysis; the list goes on!  I have worked on a few on a few collaborative research projects and realized that when it comes to weaving together the various findings—in this case, some that Jane picked up at the British Library, some that I mined from digital archives on my laptop at home in Montreal, some that Giselle unearthed at LAC in Ottawa—there is a lot of work that happens when a group of people decide to write up their work, before the (dreaded) first words of the first draft are hazarded on the blank page.

When we met to brainstorm the focus and approach of our article, I was reminded of how a feminist methodology to the work that happens behind the scenes is just as important as that which informs the type of data collected, how we analyze it, and the interventions that we are able to make as a result.  Having reached the point at which we had a critical mass of information about our topic, we spent several hours just talking through what we have found, posing each other questions, writing isolated terms on a whiteboard.  It felt both intellectually stimulating and personally affirming for us to each, at different stages of our career, to have our space and time to share what we knew, be honest about what we didn’t, and collaboratively decide where we would concentrate our communal efforts.  A few hours, many coffees, and even more red circles around exciting terms later, we had our co-planned research design ready to go.

This method of inclusiveness continued as the weeks progressed.  I took a first pass at getting a lot of the historical context/literature review content down, which the three of us then workshopped together.  I then passed the baton on to Jane and Giselle as they took the lead on refining my first draft, building the text with primary source examples and data visualizations respectively.  I used this time to dive back into the secondary source material to deepen my understanding of some of the suggestions that Jane and Giselle made.  This workflow was not accidental; as with all academics, all three of us are juggling several projects at once (chief among them for Giselle and I, doctoral theses, although with all the other stuff going on I sometimes forget that…) and we were able to streamline the work flow to complement, rather than aggravate, timelines of other responsibilities, to say nothing of caring duties, other work, and time off.

This may seem like an obvious way to go about collaboratively writing to some readers.  If it is, I’m delighted.  If it isn’t, I hope this short write-up will give you a sense of how co-writing can be infused with care and consideration for your colleagues without sacrificing on rigour or quality.  With the article now being considered at an academic journal, it is also wonderful to be able to reflect on the process in the hopes of replicating it for future research outputs.

~GMK