The research process is usually construed as linear, from registration to graduation, defined by completion within a certain period. This notion of a linear ‘pipeline’ has been critiqued for its embeddedness in a managerial discourse and the way it constrains transformation. Here, we focus on how writing support gets ensnared in ‘pipeline thinking’, partly because of the dominant image of communication as a conduit, an image that shapes approaches to teaching research writing. Our experiences with the design, teaching and research of an online writing course unsettle fixed views of writing as a stable signifier of a position within, and completion of, the pipeline. We use Deleuze and Guattari’s concept of the rhizome as a way of showing the paradox of research journeys—of keeping moving, while being located here, there and somewhere else. There is always an excess, something that spills out from pipelines. We offer snapshots of different kinds of data that express a ‘both-and’ rather than an ‘either-or’ logic: both course and resource, engagements within and beyond the course and writing as both process and product. Rhizomatic thinking allowed us to reflect on participants’ research journeys, our course design and research process, as dynamic encounters with the potential for creativity and transformation. This yielded questions about writing and literacy where the emergent qualities of curriculum, writer identities and textual ‘products-for-now’ are embraced rather than suppressed.

研究过程通常被解释为线性的，从注册到毕业，定义为在一定时期内完成。这种线性“管道”的概念因其嵌入管理话语及其限制转型的方式而受到批评。在这里，我们关注写作支持如何陷入“管道思维”，部分原因是沟通作为一种渠道的主导形象，这种形象塑造了教学研究写作的方法。我们在在线写作课程的设计、教学和研究方面的经验使人们对写作的固定看法感到不安，因为他们认为写作是在管道内的位置和完成的稳定能指。我们使用德勒兹和加塔利的根茎概念来展示研究旅程的悖论——不断移动，同时位于这里、那里和其他地方。总会有多余的东西从管道中溢出。我们提供表达“两者兼而有之”而非“非此即彼”逻辑的不同类型数据的快照：两者都可以和资源、课程内外的参与以及作为过程和产品的写作。根茎思维使我们能够反思参与者的研究旅程、我们的课程设计和研究过程，将其视为具有创造力和变革潜力的动态相遇。这产生了关于写作和识字的问题，其中课程、作家身份和文本“现成产品”的新兴品质被接受而不是被压制。