As people worked on their projects, we continued to communicate online. Participants described their projects and reported on developments. We posted and responded to questions about research. In particular, we explored notions and approaches to "informed consent," drawing from published resources and a conversation with people experienced in community-based, qualitative research. We also explored ideas about the "lenses" we each bring to our research, and about how these lenses and our various identities shape what we see and hear in our research. Judy and Mary also visited with Project participants to hear about their research, discuss processes and options as needed and, in some cases, to take part in project activities and meet the women involved. These visits also provided Judy and Mary with a sense of the geography and context for each participant's work.

By May, most participants had completed their projects and data collection and it was time to move onto analysis and writing. This was the focus of the third workshop. By the fall, participants had prepared drafts which we shared and read before a final workshop in November. Drafts were revised and completed in the following months, with face-to-face and online feedback and support from Jenny, Judy and Mary. Writing the research reports—and providing support for the writing—was challenging and time-consuming in a range of ways. In the May workshop, taking a lead from participants who had facilitated writing groups, we brainstormed fears about writing and ways to address them. In providing feedback, we struggled with questions related to authorship and with expectations about "what counts" in the field of published research. For instance, in one case, we found that we could not "hear" an author in her writing. We knew her to be a warm, engaged and present facilitator, and this was not coming through in her report. In talking with her, we learned that she had purposely distanced herself, thinking that was what was called for in a research report.

Our feedback process entailed fairly detailed suggestions about analyzing and organizing, along with some editing. This level of feedback likely reflected our awareness that the reports would be published, that they would be "out there" for all to read. In providing this feedback, we wanted to help shine a light on what each participant had learned, but we were also mindful about not assuming the authority of the work and not imposing our voices. Sometimes we encouraged authors to dig deeper in their analysis, also mindful that this would require more time and energy. Participants were gracious about receiving feedback, and some shared how they felt about it. A couple said that as this was their first time doing research, they hadn't had any previous models for writing.