Category Archives: Tips for Students and Faculty

Resources for faculty, Tips for Students and Faculty

Co-Authoring with Undergraduates in the Humanities II: Peer Review and Publication

In my last post on co-authoring with undergraduates, I shared my experience collaborating with undergraduate co-authors on a humanities research project. I gained some valuable insights from the process of co-authoring an article that emerged from that project. That post, published in December 2022, was completed shortly after we had submitted that article to a scholarly journal. At the end of the post, I promised a second post addressing the peer review process. I am truly delighted to be able to provide that update now, shortly after we were notified that the article was accepted after a substantive revise and resubmit. Here, then, rather sooner than expected, I share three insights from my experience navigating peer review with my co-authors.

​The journal to which we submitted our article in November responded both quickly and prolifically, providing within two months no fewer than four (!) detailed and thoughtful readers’ reports that collectively recommended specific major revisions. I understood this to be surprisingly good news: when we had submitted to a well-respected subfield journal, I had anticipated that we would get informative rejections that would help us revise before submitting to a lower tier venue. However, it quickly dawned on me that most faculty members have very different experiences and expectations for writing feedback than undergraduates do. This was especially true for undergraduates like my co-authors, whose academic careers had been spent at a small liberal arts college they chose because of its supportive professors. In other words: the most critical comments any professor had offered on their writing had nothing on the infamous Reviewer 2!

Rebecca Evans
Rebecca McWilliams Ojala Ballard, Florida State University

What to Expect, Part I: Contextualize the Process

​The readers’ reports were generous, clearly written with an awareness that they would be read by undergraduate researchers. Even so, they did not hold back from candid criticism of the weaker parts of our argument. Before sharing the reports, then, I framed them for the students. I explained both that I had been prepared for a rejection and that this expectation was based not on any perceived weakness in their writing, but rather was my baseline expectation for first submissions. I also explicitly unpacked the differences between professorial feedback and readers’ reports, prepared them to receive less gentle comments than they had previously enjoyed, and offered my honest interpretation of the reports: that they were blunt in pointing out the areas that needed the most work, yes, but that the explicit praise they offered on matters large and small was an indication of sincere excitement about the project. Once we had talked this through, I shared the reports with them. After they had had a chance to review them, we met up in person. We began by processing the experience on a personal level, and I validated both the pride they expressed in the compliments our work had been given and what we had already achieved together, and the prickly defensiveness they admitted had flashed up at the harsher assessments. My preparation on the front end, the rapport we had built over the course of the project, and the real-time, face-to-face format in which we were debriefing made this an effective way to move past negative reactions and into the second part of our work that day: coming up with a shared list of small and large revisions to be made, delegating each revision item to the person initially responsible for drafting that section, breaking those items down into smaller scaffolded tasks, and agreeing on a timeline by which each task would be completed and shared with the group.

What to Expect, Part II: Practice the Humility You Preach

​ Many of the revisions were located in the textual readings on which the students had taken point, and identified issues common even to the most talented undergraduate writers: first, insufficient engagement with current scholarly conversations on the text or topic at hand, requiring another (focused and abbreviated!) research pass; second, slightly too opinionated responses to texts, requiring a reframing to emphasize analytic interpretation rather than personal preference. However, the reviews also suggested that at the largest scale the argumentative framework was stretched too thin, and that the opening in particular was a bit overstated, calling for a reframing to center what they all found to be the very compelling heart of the argument. This was entirely on me—the result, I think, of trying to preserve every insight that had been meaningful to our group throughout the process, rather than really honing in on the strongest arguments. Revision meant not just shepherding the students through modesty in accepting major critiques, but demonstrating that modesty myself. We talked about this openly and agreed that I would send them my revisions while they were still researching theirs, both to help guide them in targeting the newly refined argument, and to model what a real overhaul rather than surface edits looked like. All of the readers who responded to the revised article not only recommended publication with extremely minor edits, but also expressed admiration at the depth and breadth of revisions we had taken on.

What to Expect, Part III: Carry the Load

​ I will take every opportunity available to praise the intellectual maturity, enthusiasm, and dedication of my student co-authors: they are both superstars. Even so, as in the first stage of the process, I had to do a lot of project management during the R&R. The majority of our substantive work was truly collaborative, but I quickly realized that it would be much more efficient simply to take the fiddly little details on myself rather than insisting on doing everything together. Copy-editing, double-checking citations, trimming our revised piece back down to word count, and drafting the editorial memo: I asked for their review and approval of the final results, but my taking point on these saved us all a lot of time (and, I think, is only fair given that the students were at this point recent graduates with full-time jobs, while this labor was actually work toward my full-time job!).

​In all, I found the process of co-authoring with undergraduates to be both smoother and more rewarding than I had anticipated. Look out for our forthcoming article, “Collectivism as Adaptation in Climate Fiction,” in ISLE: Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment, and in particular for the first academic bylines of Southwestern University graduates Col Roche and Elena Welsh!

Note: I published my last post under the name Rebecca M. Evans.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
Resources for faculty, Tips for Students and Faculty

Co-Authoring with Undergraduates in the Humanities

I often hear that collaborative co-authored humanities research with undergraduates is a problem rather than an opportunity. My colleagues concerns aren’t entirely unreasonable. Humanities faculty publish co-authored work much less frequently than our colleagues in the natural and social sciences do. Similarly, our division (and in particular my home discipline of English) tends to frame knowledge as the result of one scholarly mind at work. This is especially acute in my subfield—contemporary literary studies—where the steps of gathering and of interpreting material happen almost simultaneously as the scholar reads the literary text. As a result, it is much harder to identify hierarchies of co-authors than in academic fields in which student collaborators take on discrete, bounded parts of the data collection and analysis processes.

In this post, I share my experience co-authoring with undergraduates as we worked on an article together, from our initial mentored research experience through submitting the piece for publication. I will speak honestly about the difficulties I encountered, but I want to emphasize the benefits it afforded—not only for the students, but for my work and thinking as well.

Rebecca Evans – Southwestern University

The project began in a collaborative and mentored research experience. Funded by my institution, two students worked with me for six weeks on a project surveying major trends across a broad corpus of “cli-fi,” or climate fiction. After a one-week calibration stage, we spent three weeks independently recording our findings in relation to a set of shared questions: representations of climate science; engagements with climate justice; discussion of adaptation and/or mitigation; relevant climate communication frameworks; and notable formal and stylistic features. During the last two weeks, all participants extended this work into their individual humanities research interests they had developed during the project: I worked on the book chapter that the research project was initially proposed to support; the two students took up, respectively, Indigenous cli-fi and climate fantasy. As our project drew to a close, we reflected on our various interests and findings, and a shared argument began to emerge. All of us were pushing in some way against the dominant critical praise of cli-fi as representing realistic futures; all of us were also finding that our texts were most, and most successfully, interested in navigating questions of community formation and collectivity in relation to climate catastrophe. Now the only outcome required by our institution was that the students present their work at annual research symposium. But the students had grown excited about the project and invested in the broader implications of the work they had begun to pursue. When I mentioned the possibility of seeking to publish, they seized on the idea of a co-authored article, and our work began. Three insights from that process on co-authoring with undergraduates are below.

What to Expect, Part I: Emergent and Evolving Arguments

Rarely do I begin writing an article without a very clear sense of the argument. This project was quite different. Because it was the combined product of three minds, it took different shapes at different points: we had to adjust and expand earlier argumentative structures that didn’t quite “fit” our shared goals; brilliant points (mostly theirs!) that detracted from the overall arc needed editing to be less central or saved for future projects. In the end, this was good for all of us. I saw how the experience cemented the value of revision and the
writing process for the students, turning them into even more mature writers and peer editors. I also found the experience useful during my own simultaneous process of working on my book manuscript, helping me to get back in the habit of rereading, realigning, and letting projects take the best shape possible, not just the shape I had initially planned.

What to Expect, Part II: Necessary Division of Labor

Undergraduate co-authors may be better prepared to write some sections than others. My co-authors produced thoughtful, purposeful, and attentive close readings; but they were less equipped to make the case about how these readings fit within larger conversations, or to articulate how these readings intervened in contemporary scholarly debates. This isn’t to say they didn’t understand the big picture! But dividing our work so that I was responsible for the argumentative frame while they tackled the readings and analysis proved immensely useful for us. Not only did we move more efficiently—I also saw how valuable it was for them to get firsthand experience with how their astute insights and instincts could develop into scholarly arguments. Subsequent drafts of the article showed how this exercise had tightened and advanced their critical voice, as they fine-tuned their individual points to fit into the broader arc. Meanwhile, papers they wrote for me in subsequent classes clarified for me how formative this experience was to their confidence and their ability to tackle more ambitious arguments.

What to Expect, Part III: Slow and Unsteady Pacing

Like many humanists, I’m accustomed to working largely at my own pace, with whatever lapses and sprints that my schedule (and my relationship to the projects in question!) demands. Co-authoring with undergraduates means all of the pauses that are inevitable when different schedules collide—delays that many of us may have experienced mostly on the editorial end of things, and are only exacerbated by the fact that undergraduate co-authors are juggling even
more obligations, with even less extrinsic motivation to finish an academic article. My student co-authors were organized, dedicated, and eminently responsible. Even so, things moved slowly, and required consistent project management and strategic long-term scheduling on my end. The downside: those on tight tenure clocks may not find this to be the most efficient path toward a publication line. The upside: this project benefited immensely from time and perspective and helped me remember the profound value of sitting with ideas and delving into them rather than rushing.

As of this point, we have completed a draft of the article and are preparing to submit it to an academic journal. Stay tuned for an update post on the blog reflecting on the experience of navigating peer review while co-authoring with undergraduates in humanities research!

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
Resources for faculty, Tips for Students and Faculty

Improving Online Teams for Undergraduate Research

Keeping undergraduate students engaged and energized in ongoing research teams is an activity made more challenging by the need to meet exclusively online. Dr. Nathaniel Stern, a Professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee with a dual appointment in Art and Mechanical Engineering, shared his experience working with online teams at a recent gathering of the Wisconsin Council on Undergraduate Research (WisCUR). Afterward, CURAH caught up with Dr. Stern to hear a bit more.

CURAH: What has the move to online teams taught you about what students need?

NS: In brief, there are four things my students need: empathy, energy, structure, and materiality. I provide these things through check-ins, “stokes,” schedules, and visual and material engagement.

I should say also that teams of students need these things regardless of present circumstances, but the need has certainly been amplified by having to meet online.

CURAH: Let’s take these one at a time: tell us about empathy.

NS: In terms of empathy, every meeting begins with a prompted sharing exercise: “The best part of my week was . . .” or “I feel up/down about X” or “I am looking forward to Y.” Sometimes I have them arrange what the empathy check-in will be. I participate, too, and we all respond to each other. In addition, I spend a little extra time with each student on rotation. Here, the goal is to make them feel heard and seen.

CURAH: Now, energy—and what are “stokes”?

NS: Stokes are little things we do to inject energy into our gatherings. We have silent dance parties, play Simon Says, throw invisible knives and balls to each other, set up poses and make drawings on our screens. The main goal here: we want to get out of our seats and get excited about what we are doing. Often, we tie this to where we are in the project, to aesthetics or brainstorming for new ideas, that sort of thing.

CURAH: How do you structure your online teams?

NS: We meet weekly, typically in groups of five. We maintain schedules and timelines, core to-do lists, and assignments using Gantt charts, Google sheets, MURAL with virtual sticky notes, and more. We work on these together, and my one or two most senior students take charge. They use these tools to create investment in the whole project, as well as accountability for individual tasks.

CURAH: Tell us what you mean by materiality.

NS: In my mind, it’s related to the stokes we do for energy. We want to remember we have bodies, that we are bodies, and that we make use of them. But this also means paying attention to visual materials and, well, things. We use MURAL for brainstorming frequently because it mimics a physical whiteboard and post-its. We send materials to each other to play with, we sketch and write during our time together as well as on our own, and we share out. In the fine arts, it should be said, we often confuse medium and discipline, so I make clear to my students that matter really does matter here!

One thing that also helps is that I actually make all of this transparent to my students. I let them in on what I am doing and why. I ask them for feedback on what they need. This mirrors how we make decisions about research direction together, and how we decide who works on what.

CURAH: Can you tell us about one of the projects you’re currently working on with student teams?

NS: I am working, in collaboration with artist and director (and UW-M alum) Samantha Tan, on a Zoom-bound documentary about the Black Lives Matter movement, entitled Leverage: Taking Antiracist Action in This Moment. With the coronavirus pandemic also in the background, the film presents how a variety of community members are working hard towards equity. We do not speak for the movement (or its leaders), but rather with diverse voices who are making Black lives matter. We share what they are both learning and doing, in order to ask us all to take action in this moment, and every moment.

CURAH: As we round into the second year of collaborative work constrained by the global pandemic, any last words?

We still do stokes at every meeting!

For more information on Dr. Stern’s projects past and present, see https://nathanielstern.com.

Resources for faculty, Tips for Students and Faculty

Repatriation as Undergraduate Research: Lessons from Two Case Studies

We are fortunate to live at a time when museums and public collections are finally returning objects to the people and cultures from whom they were taken. Colleges and universities, large and small, often have their own collections and will continue to be a part of this process (in some cases the law requires it). As two cases at Albion College make clear, repatriation represents an opportunity for undergraduate research. Activities appropriate for mentored students include reviewing a collection, determining which objects are legitimate subjects of repatriation, and documenting them completely. The actual repatriation process itself requires communication and public relations. Its fruition serves as an important public confirmation and validation of basic research.

NAGPRA requires research

Happily, the law actually requires some research (how often does that happen!) through the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) . All museums, federal agencies, colleges, and universities need to compile an inventory of Native American human remains, funerary objects, and summarize other cultural items. No university collections, no matter how small, are exempt, regardless of where the cultural items are physically located. Much of this inventory and summary work is within the capabilities of mentored undergraduates. At Albion College, for example, the inventory and summary research of student Chelsea Adams resulted in identifying a Zuni Ahayu’da, one of twin gods of war.

This Ahayu’da was subject of a successful repatriation effort.
This 19th century Ahayu’da had been in Albion College’s possession since 1973. It was returned to the Zuni people in a ceremony in 2018.

This was a clear case for repatriation since the Zuni consider any Ahayu’da removed from its shrine (where it retires to decay naturally) as stolen. After documenting the Ahayu’da carefully and following the NAGPRA protocol, it was repatriated in a ceremony on campus involving several Zuni elders.

Repatriation is highly collaborative

Opportunities also exist for repatriation outside of the United States. These are less formally defined than with NAGPRA repatriation, although the process can be more complicated and more collaborative. Archeologist Joel Palka (currently at Arizona State University) was using a collection at Albion College as part of his 2005 book on the Maya and identified an urn whose twin resides in Chiapas, Mexico. In 2016, he collaborated with Albion’s archivist, Justin Seidler, anthropologist Brad Chase, and Albion students to perform an instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) on the urn. Since then, Palka has helped Albion work toward repatriating the urn to Chiapas, along with Josuhé Lozada Toledo, an archaeologist and Professor of the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia in Mexico (INAH).

“Everyone has been extremely excited about the process,” says Meghan Webb, Albion College anthropology professor, “and it has been an encouraging process. All involved also see the repatriation as a process and opportunity to build ongoing relationships.” Webb has been working with student Dulce Aceves on a research project connected with the repatriation, which is expected to conclude in the spring of 2021.

Repatriation is scalable

These cases at Albion College make it clear that repatriation of even a single object is a major project, requiring intensive research and extensive communication. As a result, it’s possible that even small collections can potentially provide ongoing opportunities for undergraduate work. In addition, given the large number of small tasks, repatriation is a potential opportunity for a course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE), expanding the reach of the experience.

Repatriation is the right thing to do!

Finally, repatriation puts faculty and undergraduate students on the right side of history. The work of repatriation teaches students about the ethics of collections and about the history of Western colonialism and hegemony.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Tips for Students and Faculty

That Belongs in a Museum!: Rescuing Material for Exhibitions–And Undergraduate Research

Exhibitions offer excellent opportunities for undergraduate research especially at the introductory level. But finding appropriate materials to exhibit can be daunting, requiring collaboration with libraries or museums. In addition, established collections are often well studied, leaving a little room for authentic research by undergraduate students. One solution is to acquire items specifically for the purpose of an undergraduate exhibition. A treasure trove of inexpensive minor items, early printed pages, and more modern ephemera is available on auction sites like eBay. With patience and careful attention to ethical issues, it’s possible to assemble and mount an exhibition in your field for less than $500. And the items acquired can remain as part of a college or university’s teaching collection long after the exhibition is over, preserving public access to materials that might otherwise have languished in private collections. Here are some rules of thumb to guide your adventure.

Be flexible.

All exhibitions have a theme or focus, and your expertise will no doubt suggest many ideal items to you. But you will have most success if you bring a flexible and open-minded approach to your search. Items produced in large numbers, or in metal, and pages from large and popular texts are easiest to find and present the fewest ethical issues. (See “Pay Attention to Ethics!” below). Small metal finds from the European Middle Ages include lead pilgrim badges, cloth seals, and seal matrices; from the early modern period, you’ll find Delft tiles; bronze book clasps, and pages from popular works of natural philosophy. A page from Speed’s Atlas in a student exhibition Happily, pages that offer the most opportunity for student research, with text as well as images, are usually less expensive than ones with images alone. Modern ephemera include local newspapers, family photo collections and scrapbooks, posters, campaign materials, etc.

Trust your expertise?

Museums care deeply about provenance and authenticity. In part, that is because they are collecting items of great value, where forgery becomes an issue. At the cost point for undergraduate exhibitions, your ordinary scholarly expertise is enough to point you in the right direction. For example, while it is possible for someone to forge a page from Gerard’s Herball (1597), the cost and trouble to do so at the level that would deceive any early modern scholar would not be worth the $6 that such pages often garner. If you’ve spent hours in the archives, you are unlikely to mistake a facsimile for the real thing. Overall, you don’t need to be an art expert in order to demonstrate the level of expertise required for a low-cost undergraduate exhibition. A good rule of thumb is that if you doubt the authenticity, then others will too.

Pay attention to ethical issues!

As anyone involved with museum acquisitions knows, purchasing an artifact always involves a delicate ethical balance. If you use items you acquire in teaching and make them available to the public, you have some strong positive outcomes. But you should take care to minimize the harm caused by participating in the marketplace. The issue is particularly tricky with anything that counts as an antiquity. The Society for American Archaeology’s code of ethics generally forbids participation in the market for antiquities because it creates incentives for looting. If you’re a purist, you may extend this even to existing private collections and to objects that have always been extant. Raising the ethical issues can also be a legitimate part of the pedagogy of your undergraduate research experience.

  • Consider both the cost of the item and its origin. A low cost may seem unlikely to encourage irresponsible behavior. But for items from developing countries, prices that may seem low to you can still be incentives to loot. Some countries, however, strictly monitor (and permit) the collection of minor objects. In the UK, for example, metal detector finds are documented in a public database, and the Treasure Act and national monument laws protect cultural heritage.
  • Avoid beauty. Prefer damaged, broken, and incomplete minor items. Objects and texts that are perfect or aesthetically pleasing are important cultural heritage, if authentic. Broken pottery fragments might be OK (but no guarantees). The frieze of the Parthenon is not.
  • For pages from texts, consider the cost of the page against the value of a complete text. You can usually check this using records from sites like abebooks or auction sites. Don’t buy individual pages for a price that might encourage collectors to destroy undamaged books.
  • Do not acquire items from indigenous cultures or their ancestors.

Save some of your budget to mount your exhibition.

Creating secure and attractive exhibitions requires some thought to presentation, and that comes with its own costs. Individual pages can be mounted using swing-out plexiglas with nothing more than some brass hardware, a hand drill, and a screwdriver. (NB: Consider UV resistant plexiglas for long-term or sunlit installations). Three dimensional items might require collaborating with someone who has basic carpentry skills. The low cost nature of your items should make you less anxious about theft or vandalism and thus open up more potential semi-protected exhibition spaces.

Consider future teaching uses.

Exhibitions offer great course-based undergraduate research experiences, but consider collections that can be used in teaching long after the exhibition is taken down. Simple classroom assignments can motivate students when they have the chance to handle historical material.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Tips for Students and Faculty

Collaboration in Undergraduate Research Acts as Force Multiplier

Assignments that allow students to conduct original research for publication in humanities-focused digital repositories help make classroom learning concrete. And since public-facing projects serve the larger scholarly community, student participants can recognize themselves as valued members of that community. Yet, as Ian F. MacInnes rightly observes in his tips for for “Building Community in Online Classes,” it can sometimes take years for these contributions to see the light of day. The delay is due to the time and labor required for peer-review and copyediting. Student contributions often need a lot of both. Moreover, because these tasks frequently fall upon professors, some may be discouraged from offering such opportunities at all.

One solution is to make contributions to major digital humanities sites the subject of collaboration across multiple courses and semesters. Such collaboration in undergraduate research has a force multiplying effect. It makes the work of peer-review and editing visible, and it underscores the value of contributions at each stage of the publication process.

An Embarrassment of Riches

In my experience working with The Map of Early Modern London, a DH project featuring seven interoperable databases, and directing the Kit Marlowe Project, a student-generated digital repository for studying early modern literature, I frequently found myself overwhelmed by the volume of student-generated content. All of it required extensive fact-checking and editorial work. This problem came to a head as I prepared to launch the Kit Marlowe Project at the 2018 Shakespeare Association of America (SAA) Annual Meeting. I needed to review students’ TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) encoding projects and web exhibits. And I had roughly twenty-five encyclopaedia entries that were enthusiastically long-winded and sometimes slipped into pure conjecture. Their bibliographies also needed additional work. The students’ contributions represented great effort but were clearly not ready for publication.

Initially, I took on the job of checking and copy-editing myself. Alas, I soon realized the process was unsustainable. But what if we extended project collaboration beyond a single semester?

A Solution Benefits Project–and Students

In Spring 2018, prior to the (SAA) meeting, I tested this hypothesis. I created assignments that asked students to fact-check and copyedit previous students’ bibliography, encyclopaedia, and personography entries (the latter linked to our TEI-encoding projects). I assigned content to students in subsequent semesters to fact-check and copyedit. Students’ metacognitive reflections following this experiment revealed powerful learning outcomes (“Students Reflect on ‘Dangerous Knowledge’”). They found some elements of these assignments tedious in the early stages. But they ultimately recognized that strong research is a process requiring persistence and attention to detail. I have since formalized the process of force-multiplying collaboration, re-assigning student submissions to subsequent classes, or the current project intern. Students who initially create content receive credit on the site as contributors for their term, and tagged in entries with their later editors.

This practice helps students recognize the labor involved in the publication pipeline and their role in it. They are not involved in what David Wiley has called “disposable assignments,” single-use tasks that are graded and thrown away (“What is Open Pedagogy?”). Rather, they are “renewable” ones, defined by Open Education Group as those that “provide students with opportunities to engage in meaningful work, add value to the world, and provide a foundation for future students to learn from and build upon” (“DOER, Designing with OER”). Force-multiplying collaboration in undergraduate research provides the foundation for their peers to learn from and build upon. At the same time, it recognizes their contributions’ value to the larger scholarly community.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Tips for Students and Faculty

Building Community in Online Classes through Undergraduate Research

As so many teachers have realized over the past months, building community in online classes is a central challenge, a fact that veteran remote educators have alway known. Unfortunately, many proposed solutions are of the “getting to know each other” variety. But authentic community is created not when students simply know each other but when they share values and goals. And one way to create such shared values and goals is through the course-based undergraduate research experience or “CURE.”

Anyone who has created even a small competitive game in class knows that shared goals can be created entirely artificially. There are wonderful and robust arts and humanities methods that use this strategy such as the Reacting to the Past (RTTP) simulations from Barnard. But because undergraduate research, as defined by CUR, involves “original intellectual or creative contributions to the discipline,” it relies on meaningful goals that go beyond the classroom. Getting students to share those goals means helping them value the arts and humanities themselves, an important learning outcome. Here are some ways to shape your course-based undergraduate research experience for maximum community building.

Make dissemination visible

Look for projects in which dissemination is timely and visible. Many valuable projects in the humanities ask for material from participants that may not see the light of day for years. Contributions to the arts and humanities infrastructure, such databases and curation may not appeal to students who are already experiencing the distancing of remote education. If you do want to use projects like these, seek out opportunities to create immediate feedback, like inviting the director of a project or organization to thank the students and to help them imagine the value of their contributions. Consider whether the project can make any immediate acknowledgment of students while their work is being processed, such as listing them on contributor pages.

Involve a known audience

It is tempting to incorporate creative and scholarly experiences that speak to a national or global audience since that is what faculty themselves consider to be the ultimate audience for any contribution to the field. But valuable work in the arts and humanities can also be directed at more local audiences, especially when the “public humanities” and non-expert audiences are considered. It’s easier for students to feel the reality and immediacy of their work when its audience includes peers, mentors, and family members. Virtual presentation opportunities have actually expanded the possibilities. For example, if students’ work will be part of an online conference, consider requiring them to invite a number of family and friends to listen in.

Give prizes

Creative and scholarly experiences are serious and meaningful, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t improved them with a bit of community-building fun, and nothing builds community as fast as friendly competition. Look for opportunities to award non-serious prizes separate from any course related benefits. For example, local groups participating in the annual transcribathon for EMROC may be encouraged by silly prizes awarded for the first person to spot a given word in a manuscript.

Reduce the stakes for collaboration

Collaboration is a powerful tool for building community in any setting because it focuses small groups on shared goals. But when collaboration is also a course expectation it risks working against community through the dreaded “group project” syndrome. High-performing students either worry on the one hand that their performance will be held hostage to that of their peers or on the other hand that they will end up doing all the work. These problems are exacerbated in online classes because students may feel that they have reduced opportunities to encourage each other.

One solution is to make collaboration involve both independent and group responsibility. For example, ask students collaborating on a single scholarly or creative outcome to create their own independent contribution and then to work with others to merge the best aspects of their independent work. Assign course credit based on individual merit for the first part and on participation and engagement for the second part. This reduces the responsibility for effective teamwork while still producing successful outcomes since the best student work will end up in the final product whether or not a group is successful as a team.

Collaborate with undergraduates at other institutions

School spirit doesn’t disappear after high school, and it’s a well-tested way to create a sense of community that can be adapted for undergraduate research experiences. Look for opportunities to pair projects with colleagues at other institutions. Students can make presenting to their peers at other institutions a part of the research experience. Not only is emulation a powerful motivator, but students at each institution will grow closer together as they seek to put their best foot forward.

Have you used CUREs for building community in online classes? Let the CURAH editors know at @curartsandhumanities.org.

Tips for Students and Faculty

A Holistic Approach to Advocacy for Undergraduate Research

By Maria T. Iacullo-Bird, Ph.D.

Advocacy supports a cause you believe is important. It can be pursued in a variety of ways and address a range of constituencies. It is rooted in face-to-face engagement, but digital correspondence, social media and online access have exponentially expanded our reach. Advocacy is an extension of the educator’s role to inform and make a case for best practices and innovative ideas. As in good teaching, a holistic approach makes for more effective advocacy.

If you are new to advocacy, you might want to consider how to become involved. I advocate for undergraduate research in the arts and humanities in a variety of interconnected ways both with and for the Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR).

Beginning Advocacy at the Federal and State Levels

CUR has a long-standing commitment to informing Congressional leaders and their legislative staffs about how federally funded agencies, endowments and programs impact undergraduate research and student achievement. As the national voice for undergraduate research, CUR focuses its advocacy efforts at the federal level. When working with elected representatives, it is essential to learn the difference between lobbying and advocacy. Lobbying is distinguished by its emphasis on targeting specific legislation by name with elected officials and their staffs. An example would be explicitly referencing the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Advocacy, by contrast within the context of CUR and its membership, addresses the value of undergraduate research. Also included in advocacy are related educational initiatives such as those that advance access, diversity and inclusion in higher education.

You should first consult with your university about advocating at the state or federal level. Once informed, government relations offices usually support advocacy efforts. In my case, these conversations have advanced university partnering on behalf of undergraduate research. Government relations colleagues coordinate bringing legislators to campus for research events and the sending of students to the state capital to present research.

An essential resource available to the CUR membership is its advocacy toolkit. In the toolkit under “Additional Resources” CUR defines advocacy as:

It’s important that you get on the list of approved prescription drug pharmacies, you can review the list below: Pharmacy Information Online over the counter, one must have a prescription from the pharmacy’s customer service representative as opposed to going through the store’s website and paying to be sent an e-card. The study said Ivermectin is now prescribed as recommended by the Food and Drug Administration since it is the first anti-mal Ivermectin for Sale over the counter, you can visit Ivermectin’s website. In order to offer FDA approved products, these online pharmacies must also meet the following requirements: To get your prescription medicine, fill out a request form for the original prescriber name to fill out so that they can verify your order. There are more than 100 online pharmacies in the above link, online or in person, to buy Ivermectin for Sale over the counter from a physician. If you want https://www.thereadgroup.net/where-to-buy-ivermectin-for-sale/ but you have not completed a minimum of six months of recommended treatment before purchasing Ivermectin from any pharmacy, and it does not work in patients having the problem. Many believe that Ivermectin has also proven its ability to combat acute gastroenteritis and colon cancer which is one of the following services at a reasonable price: A free initial consultation There are also online stores for both medical and non-medical drugs.
  1. organized action in support of an idea or cause;
  2. as constituents educating elected officials on important issues, and
  3. as establishing ongoing and trusting relationships.

When visiting Capitol Hill, CUR encourages members to coordinate with the National Office and its public policy firm, the Bose Public Affairs Group, to arrange visits on Capitol Hill. As professional lobbyists, Bose will arrange meetings for CUR members with their congressional representatives and accompany them on these visits.

A valuable source of information for advocacy efforts is the Bose weekly report titled “This Week in Washington” to which all CUR members can subscribe. Additionally, Bose is working with the CUR National Office to provide “advocacy bites accompanied by action steps.” Bose recommends knowing who represents you on Capitol Hill and you can determine that here. You can visit congressional websites and follow them on Twitter or other social media platforms. By getting to know your representatives you can assess what they support and how this might connect to undergraduate research. Also, remember to complete your census form! The information collected affects the distribution of federal dollars and the composition of Congress.

How to Advocate

Since being introduced to advocacy in 2013, I visit Capitol Hill when I attend the CUR Dialogues Conference in mid-February. Timing advocacy meetings to coincide with a CUR conference trip in D.C. or disciplinary association events is an effective and economical way to maximize proximity and couple advocacy with another professional activity.

When we advocate for undergraduate research we advocate for all students. Therefore, we should reference related educational initiatives that support student success. Simultaneously, our presence highlights the achievements of our home institution and its students as constituents of a legislative office.

When I meet with legislators and their staffers, I highlight undergraduate research as a recognized “best practice” pedagogy. I argue that it directly correlates to higher rates of retention, timely graduation, clarified career choices and advanced graduate degrees. Another effective advocacy technique is to illustrate the transformative impact of undergraduate research by telling stories detailing student experiences. Including students on these congressional visits provides powerful testimony for the impact of undergraduate research.

In advocating for undergraduate research in the arts and humanities, I describe how participation in research and creative inquiry changes student lives. These experiences lead to deeper engagement with their majors, increasing self-confidence, successful post-graduation job placement, and graduate school enrollment. Connecting study in fields of the arts and humanities to the 21st Century workplace regularly resonates with policymakers.

In keeping with a holistic approach to advocacy, make the connection between undergraduate research and other federal programs that benefit students. Pell grants, federal work-study and TRIO grants such as McNair that provide access to research opportunities become part of the advocacy conversation. Similarly, address the importance of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Both are integral to the research agenda that benefits our students and the educational mission of higher education.

Connecting to the college experiences of legislative staff members also is an effective way to underscore the value of undergraduate research. Perhaps most surprisingly, even very receptive legislative offices benefit from reminders about the importance of research at the undergraduate level. The Humanities Indicators Project conducted by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences has been the most consistently appreciated informational resource I have delivered to both sides of the aisle.

Agencies, Endowments, and Applying for Grants

Building relationships with federal agencies and endowments is an essential part of CUR advocacy. CUR’s origins began in federal grants advocacy for the sciences at primarily undergraduate institutions. The annual CUR Dialogues Conference illustrates the importance of the ongoing CUR voice with federal agencies, endowments and foundations. Research administrators and faculty attending CUR Dialogues to explore grant opportunities also learn how to include funding for undergraduate students in those same grant applications. Dialogues also illustrates another aspect of advocacy by providing opportunities for faculty to learn from program officers about grants, and, in turn, program officers learn about new projects and educational priorities.

In one instance, interest expressed at an ABM meeting by Arts and Humanities Division councilors for a federal opportunity to support undergraduate research led to the start of a notable CUR-advocacy initiative with the NEH. An informal conversation with an NEH program officer at CUR Dialogues led to a formal meeting to discuss how the NEH might support undergraduate research. CUR’s advocacy continued through follow-up correspondence and resulted in the 2016 establishment of the NEH Connections grant that funds undergraduate research as experiential learning through innovative interdisciplinary curriculum development.

On campus, faculty should be encouraged to contact program officers. They can discuss their proposed projects and raise the possibility of including undergraduate research support in applications. NEH program officers over the years have made clear that a strong, well-written grant application which includes support for undergraduate research will be considered—even if such student support is not made explicit in the RFP. NEH awareness of the importance of undergraduate research has evolved through steady CUR advocacy.

Submitting grant applications also is a form of advocacy. If there are fewer submissions, then those seeking to defund can claim the NEH and NEA are of less value. Advocate by communicating to colleagues that the endowments are open for business despite the negative news. Keep applying for grants!

Professional Disciplinary Associations and Coalition Organizations

Advocacy should address undergraduate research comprehensively across the professional disciplinary associations of the arts and humanities. In the Arts and Humanities, there still is work to be done to include undergraduate research sessions at annual conferences and in disciplinary pedagogical position statements. Faculty whose disciplinary associations do not feature undergraduate research should advocate for its inclusion.

Progress is being made as more associations respond to both faculty and student interest in undergraduate research. For example, two years ago at its Annual Meeting the American Historical Association began to offer both an undergraduate research poster session and lightning round. At its 2020 Annual Meeting, the AHA modeled an inexpensive registration fee of $15 per student to promote student participation at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. For the first time in 2019 the College Art Association featured an undergraduate research poster session.

The coalition organizations that bring together the humanities community and the arts community are at the forefront of national advocacy. The National Humanities Alliance and Americans for the Arts sponsor annual spring advocacy events that consist of a day of advocacy training followed by congressional visits. Through its Arts and Humanities Division, CUR has become a national sponsor for both.

Home Institutions

Institutional advocacy begins with a CUR membership as the nationally recognized voice in undergraduate research. I advocate at my university for the enhanced level of membership to enable all students, faculty and staff to access CUR communities and resources. In coping with the unprecedented challenges of COVID-19, CUR access has offered online models and tools as we shifted quickly to virtual learning and research presentations.

Institutional advocacy can take many forms. Advocate for funding of mentoring awards and student showcases. Develop tenure and promotion guidelines that address recognition for undergraduate research. Update scaffolding in curriculum, and revise core requirements to include undergraduate research.

Social Media and Our Virtual Moment

Social media advocacy has become even more important in our current, virtual circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This past April Posters on the Hill for the first time in its history was a wholly virtual event. Although Twitter, Linked-in, Facebook and the CUR Community have been used before for promotion and advocacy, these social media platforms assumed an even greater significance. They served as critically important channels for pushing out POH undergraduate research news and highlighting student achievement.

Virtual conference presentations such as this year’s CUR ABM and the CUR Biennial, though lacking the fellowship and comradery of in-person sessions, will offer the opportunity for more inclusive participation through the elimination of travel expenses. The ABM is free to councilors, and the CUR Biennial is accessible for the cost of a registration fee with a discounted rate for students. Registering to attend the virtual Biennial and future virtual CUR conferences is member advocacy in support of CUR and the undergraduate research community!

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

News, Tips for Students and Faculty

Taking a Small Conference Online: Lessons from the Michigan Medieval and Renaissance Undergraduate Consortium

Large academic conferences all over the country, including NCUR have canceled their 2020 events in advance of the pandemic. But some have begun to think about ways of moving events online. These might include everything from annual campus celebrations of student research to regional conference. An example is the Michigan Medieval and Renaissance Undergraduate Consortium (MMRUC), coordinated by Marla Lunderberg at Hope College. She decided early to go online for both posters and presentations. The event took place on its original date, March 28, using Google Meet.

Challenges and Opportunities

Many of the challenges Lunderberg faced were the same as those faculty faced in suddenly moving to online teaching. “My own entry to synchronous online teaching was on March 23,” Lunderberg said, “so the week that we were organizing the event and offering students guidelines for presentation etiquette in general and online presentations in particular, I was far from an expert in online work.” But in some ways those challenges made the conference possible. Initially, few participants responded when Lunderberg suggested holding the conference online instead of canceling it. Then, she said, “everyone suddenly realized that their online experience was working, and that they had the time and energy to pull off the move to making this happen.”

The online format also allowed Lunderberg to put things together quickly. Many participants waited until three days before the event to signal their willingness to continue. As a result, Lunderberg said, “I had a couple of long nights sending out encouraging instructions and scheduling practice sessions so students could feel comfortable with the technology on the morning of the event.”

Successful Discussion

Students and faculty from four different institutions ended up participating throughout the day. One concern was that student might appear to present their work and then log off, but that didn’t happen. “I was especially pleased with students’ participation in the Q&A sessions following each paper presentation,” said Lunderberg. “They were receptive to the concept that participation in a conference means entering into conversation about the material they’ve researched with others who also cared about that material–and the Q&A sessions showed their engagement with their material.”

Anna Scott receives applause in the chat window during the online conference.
Anna Scott receives applause in the chat window.

Presenter Anna Scott, whose project was on “Love as a Weapon in Shakespeare” said, “what I liked best about the conference was probably the interactive way in which we as students and teachers could engage. I could answer questions from my peers and professors and connect with the comments of others even though we were not face to face. I thought everyone was really patient and encouraging. Even though it wasn’t a traditional setting, it was a great first conference experience for me.”

Poster Presentations online

Ordinarily, posters require careful set-up organization, but the online format can actually make poster presentations easier. Several students had intended to present posters at the initial face-to-face meeting. Some chose to turn the poster into a presentation. Others shared their poster with the group before the conference, allowing participants to prepare questions. “I’d certainly offer this choice in the future,” Lunderberg said. “Both options offered the students a great opportunity to demonstrate knowledge of their topics by responding to questions and engaging in conversation.”

Recommendations

As Lunderberg reflected on the experience, she said, “I think it’s important to think about the goals one wants to achieve through this or any other event, and then to think about how those goals might best be achieved in spite of a change of format.”

Communication with participants is as important in a conference as it is in online teaching. “Students feel best about their own work entering new territory if they have some idea what they are aiming to achieve,” said Lunderberg.

And finally, it’s important “to have a sense of humor about whatever might not go as planned.”

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
News, Tips for Students and Faculty

Talking to Employers about Undergraduate Research Experiences

This post is based on an earlier post by Jenny Olin Shanahan.

The good news is that employers definitely value the skills your college education is supposed to provide. The bad news is that most employers now doubt that college graduates actually have those skills. Fortunately, your undergraduate research scholarship or creative activity gives you an opportunity to prove what you know. The key is to concentrate on your broad skillset, not the content of your project. A company hiring you for public relations or marketing may not express interest in your discoveries in Civil War diaries, for example. They will express interest in all of the abilities you have gained as a result.  Here are some tips on how to make your undergraduate research experience a part of your job search.

Written communication

Strong skills in written communication rank #1 on the NACE survey of what employers want across all jobs. That’s great news because we’re all great writers in the arts and humanities, right? Your major on your resume will precede you. Don’t be surprised if employers praise you for being a good writer, even without much evidence.

But what employers really value is the “communication” part of “written communication.” In your materials, be sure to describe the written document, report, or presentation your research resulted in with an eye to how it conveys complex information to its audience. If your project required you to write a proposal, you may be able to refer to that too, especially since it is essentially grant writing, a highly valued skill. In your interview, you can talk about how your written communication was essential in order to get an important point across.

Critical thinking & analysis

Analytical and problem solving skills also rank highly on the NACE survey. Employers hire applicants who can demonstrate who can get, understand, and use different kinds of knowledge in order to solve new problems in inventive ways. Critical thinking is fundamentally creative, a hallmark of undergraduate research in the arts and humanities. Since this is an intangible skill, you might think it’s hard to show, but employers will respond well if you talk about how you overcame specific challenges in your scholarship or creative activity. In fact, overcoming challenges is a common topic for questions in interviews. How did your research expand your knowledge and skill-set so that you could produce something new?

Applying knowledge to real-world problems

The best problem-solving of all happens when you apply your academic knowledge to real world problems. Thinking about your project this way can also help you articulate your work for employers who, after all, are not usually experts in the area you studied. Employers want to hear actual examples, so be as specific as possible about your project. Consider the impact of your work, beyond the immediate results: are you bringing to light an unknown text which will allow others to understand a moment in literary history in a new way? Are you filling in a gap in the historical record? Are you making the world a more beautiful place? Don’t undercut your persuasiveness through vagueness (“Usually,” “most of the time,” et al.) and needless hedges (“I believe,” “I think”).

Working effectively on teams

Many undergraduate research projects involve students working over several years. Often, this means students of varying interests and skills work toward a common goal. Employers want to hire applicants who have experience contributing to a team objective, and who can fill many different roles. Emphasize the specific and varying ways you contributed to the success of your research project.

In the interview, be prepared to talk about a specific example in mind. Ideally this is one in which you have led a successful project. Be ready to describe what you did, what happened, and how it was successful. Every good story needs a key moment: organize your narrative around the single most important thing you did!

Ethical decision-making

Integrity, resilience, accountability, and ethical behavior: often employers group these traits under the heading “professionalism.” As you describe your research experience, consider these questions: was there information you needed to keep confidential? Did you need to understand and follow legal and ethical standards for the use of copyrighted or proprietary information? Did you organize your efforts responsibly for the benefit of your co-workers?

In the interview, you might be asked to describe a specific time when you had to handle a tough problem. You can use your answer to demonstrate your attention to and experience with ethical decision-making.

Oral communication

Employers want to know that you can present complex information in a clear, understandable way, especially to non-expert audiences. If you have ever presented your work either on campus or at a conference you have great evidence of your communication skills. In your written materials for a job application, be sure to describe both sides of your undergraduate research. Explain both production and dissemination of knowledge–in language appropriate to the opportunity.

Your working relationship with your faculty mentor is also directly relevant to the communication you will have with a supervisor at your new place of work. In preparation, think about how you might answer the following interview question: “If you had to communicate with a faculty supervisor/research manager, how did you keep them informed, ask for guidance, and otherwise ensure the success of the project?”

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License