Professional writers are among several kinds of practitioner offering writing development to postgraduates and research staff in universities. As ‘third space’ professionals they bring expertise from the commercial world of writing into their academic writing interventions with students and staff. Yet, the difference professional writers’ experience can make for participants’ writing, in comparison to other writing developers, has hardly been examined. This paper begins to explore the contributions Royal Literary Fund Consultant Fellows (RLF CFs), a community of UK-based fiction and non-fiction authors, can make through their writing interventions. It explores these writers’ perceptions of their dual identities – as writers and writing developers – and their perceived benefits of having professional writers work with students and staff. The data reveal the central role writing plays for RLF CFs’ professional identity, which allows them to model a holistic approach to writing together with strategies for managing its affective dimension. Exploring their contribution to Higher Education (HE) writing development, the paper also prepares the ground for future studies into the impact of RLF CF interventions from the participants’ perspective.

In a Higher Education environment where evidence-based practice and accountability are highly valued, most writing practitioners will be familiar with direct requests or less tangible pressures to demonstrate that their teaching has a positive impact on students’ writing skills. Although such evaluations are not devoid of risk and the need for them is contested, it can be argued that it is better to engage with them, as this can avoid the danger of overly simplistic forms of measurements being imposed. The current paper engages with this question by proposing the conceptual basis for a new measurement tool. Based on Amabile’s Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT), developed to assess creativity, the tool develops the idea of consensual assessment of writing as a methodology that can provide robust data through systematic measurement. At the same time, I argue consensual assessment reflects the evaluation of writing in real life situations more closely than many of the methodologies for writing assessment used in other contexts, primarily large scale tests. As such, it would allow writing practitioners to go beyond ethnographic methods, or self- reporting, in order to obtain greater insight into the ways in which their teaching helps change students’ actual writing, without sacrificing the complexity of writing as social interaction, which is fundamental to an academic literacies approach.