Page 1

Engaging Academics  and   Reimagining  Scholarly   Communication  for  the   Public  Good:  A  Report  

Prepared by  JustPublics@365   for  the  Ford  Foundation  

As a  result  of  our  bold  experiment  to   reimagine  scholarly  communication  in   the  digital  age  for  the  public  good,  we   are  on  the  leading  edge  of   transformations  in  higher  education.  


Table of  Contents  

Introduction . ........................................................................  1   Summits  ........................................................................................  2   POOC:  Participatory,  Open,  Online  Course  .....................................  4   MediaCamp  Workshops  ..................................................................  5   Knowledge  Streams,  Open  Access  ..................................................  6   Metrics  that  Matter  ........................................................................  7   Partnerships  ...................................................................................  9   Social  Justice  Impressions  .............................................................  10   Lessons  Learned  ...........................................................................  32   Appendices     Appendix  A.  MediaCamp  Workshop  Schedule  .........................................  41    

Appendix B.  MedicaCamp  Evaluation  Data  ............................................  42  

Appendix C.  MediaCamp  Participation  Scale  &  Survey  ............................  87  

Appendix D.  Paper  Submitted  to  JITP  ....................................................  88  

Appendix E.  Paper  Submitted  to  JOLI  ...................................................  107  

Appendix F.  MLA  Presentation  ..............................................................  120  

Appendix G.  Quarterly  Reports  (Q1,  Q2,  Q3)  .........................................  134  

Appendix H.  Contributors  ......................................................................  142   2013    


Introduction JustPublics@365  began  as  a  discussion  about  how  an  interdisciplinary  group  of  scholars  at  the  Graduate   Center,  CUNY  (located  at  365  Fifth  Avenue  in  Manhattan)  might  be  able  to  bring  their  work  together  to   foster  greater  social  justice  by  sharing  it  in  the  public  sphere.     We  live  in  an  era  in  which  inequality  is  rampant.    Media  reports  on  inequality  often  gain  little  traction  in   a  24-­‐hour  news  cycle  dominated  by  the  trivial.  Activists  work  to  address  inequality  in  a  myriad  of  ways,   online  and  on  the  ground,  but  often  lack  connections  to  research  or  media  that  could  further  their   cause.  Key  research  produced  by  academics  can  help  us  explain  the  causes  and  consequences  of  the   growing  problem  of  inequality,  yet  often  remains  disconnected  from  activism  and  locked  within  volumes   and  journals  unread  by  the  broader  public.     JustPublics@365  was  launched  in  January  2013  as  a  bold  experiment  in  bringing  together  academics,   activists  and  journalists,  across  the  usual  silos,  to  address  social  justices  issues  through  the  use  of  digital   media.  Neither  the  media  nor  academia  nor  Internet  activists  can  address  the  pressing  problems  of  the   21st  century  by  working  in  isolation.     The  21st  century  calls  for  radically  different  strategies  that  share  data  and  research  through  networked   communication  techniques,  leveraging  the  reciprocal  power  of  social  activism  and  the  connected   platforms  of  digital  media  to  meet  demands  for  accessible  and  impactful  information  that  retains  the   integrity  and  authority  of  scholarly  research.     What  JustPublics@365  set  out  to  do  was  launch  a  project  of  cross-­‐skilling  new  hybrid  intellectuals  –  in   the  academy,  in  social  activism  and  in  journalism  –  who  combine  the  best  of  these  worlds  and  can  work   together  for  the  public  good.  And,  so  we  have.    Today,  those  involved  with  JustPublics@365  are  among   the  thought  leaders  in  the  transformation  of  higher  education.       The  initial  start  up  year  of  JustPublics@365  has  been  a  huge  success  across  several  key  domains:   Summits,  Innovative  Knowledge  Streams,  the  participatory,  open,  online  courses  (POOC),  MediaCamp   Workshops,  and  Altmetrics.  The  following  report  offers  details  of  each  part  of  the  project  in  turn,  and   there  is  an  extensive  set  of  appendices  that  provide  an  in-­‐depth  examination  of  the  project.     In  order  to  capture  the  true  flavor  and  scope  of  JustPublics@365,  please  visit  us  online:   http://justpublics365.commons.gc.cuny.edu/about/.     Daniels,  Jessie;  Thistlethwaite,  Polly.  Engaging  academics  and  reimagining  scholarly  communication  for   the  public  good:  A  report.  New  York  (NY):  The  Graduate  Center,  CUNY,  JustPublics@365;  2014.  143p.  

1

2013


1 2

JustPublics@365 Summits are high-profile events intended to bring together academics, activists and journalists around social justice issues.

Connect. Create.   Transform.  

We held  a  series  of  Summits  at   The  Graduate  Center,  CUNY   and  in  partnership  with  Drug   Policy  Alliance,  at  The  Baldy   Center  for  Law  &  Social  Policy,   University  at  Buffalo,  SUNY.   Building  connections  between   academics,  activists,  and   journalists  takes  place  in   person  as  much  as  online.  In   early  March,  JustPublics@365   held  a  multi-­‐day  summit,   Reimagining  Scholarly   Communication  for  the  21st   Century,  to  draw  together  high-­‐ profile  leaders  through   unconferences,  hackathons,   panels,  keynote  speakers,  and   roundtables.  

hosted the  academic   conference,  Theorizing  the   Web  2013  Conference   (#TtW13)  that  brought  over   300  academics,  activists,  and   media  experts  to  The  Graduate   Center,  CUNY  for  two  days.  A   simultaneous  hackathon,  which   was  covered  by  The   NewYorkTimes,  examined  the   socioeconomic  patterns  of  first   response  to  victims  of   Hurricane  Sandy.   Over  350  people  live  tweeted   1,755  tweets  using  the   conference  hashtag:  #TtW13.      

As part  of  the  inaugural   Summit,  JustPublics@365  

2

2013


In April,  JustPublics@365  hosted  “Resisting  Criminalization   through  Academic-­‐Media-­‐Activist  Partnerships”  at  the  Graduate   Center.  This  Summit  brought  together  leading  activists,   researchers,  and  journalists  in  small  roundtable  discussions  about   three  crucial  issues  related  to  criminalization:  1)  stop  and  frisk,  2)   the  school  to  prison  pipeline,  and  3)  public  health  alternatives  to   criminalizing  drug  use.   An  afternoon  panel  highlighted  the  creative  use  of  visual  images   to  tell  stories  from  data,  and  featured  a  presentation  by  Sabrina   Jones,  illustrator  of  Race  to  Incarcerate,  a  graphic  novel.  All   Summit  participants  received  a  copy  of  Jones’  book.   The  evening  plenary  featured  a  screening  of  the  documentary  film   “The  House  I  Live  In,”  (funded  in  part  by  JustFilms,  Ford   Foundation).    Following  the  screening,  there  was  a  panel   discussion  with  activists  Glenn  E.  Martin  (Fortune  Society)  and   Gabriel  Sayegh  (Drug  Policy  Alliance),  journalist  Liliana  Segura  (The   Nation),  and  scholar  Alondra  Nelson  (Columbia  University).   In  May,  JustPublics@365  partnered  with  the  Drug  Policy  Alliance   (DPA)  to  extend  the  impact  of  their  groundbreaking  report   Blueprint  for  a  Public  Health  and  Safety  Approach  to  Drug  Policy.   DPA’s  Blueprint  was  the  focus  of  a  lead  NewYorkTimes  editorial,   “The  Next  Step  in  Drug  Treatment”  (4/26/13).  

3

2013


POOC: Participatory,   Open,  Online   Course    

with a  focus  in  and  on     East  Harlem  

Infographic on  Income  Inequality  by  POOC  student.  

In 2013,  The  New  York  Times  dubbed  this  “The  Year  of  the   MOOC.”  While  there  has  been  a  great  deal  of  hyperbole  around   the  Massive  Open  Online  Course  (MOOC),  the  educational  model   put  forward  by  the  corporate  MOOCs  suggests  the  promise  of   reaching  a  wide  audience,  but  misunderstands  the  interactive   potential  of  the  web  and  have  no  interest  in  furthering  social   justice.       We  wanted  to  create  something  different  than  the  ‘MOOC,’   something  that  was  inherently  participatory,  rather  than   massive.  And,  we  wanted  to  create  something  that  engaged  with   people  outside  the  academy,  as  well  as  with  those  inside.     So  we  created  a  Participatory  Open,  Online  Course  –  or  POOC  –   with  a  focus  on  the  issues  of  inequality  and  resistance  in  East   Harlem  and  with  a  geographic  location  for  a  number  of  live,   public  seminars  that  were  also  livestreamed.     The  POOC  was  led  by  Graduate  Center  faculty  Caitlin  Cahill  and   Wendy  Luttrell  (see  highlight).  The  course  featured  guest   speakers  from  East  Harlem  and  around  the  world.    The  course   represented  a  successful  collaboration  between  a  large  collective   of  academics  at  the  Graduate  Center  and  Centro  Library  and   Archives,  along  with  East  Harlem  community  activists  (see   Appendix  D  for  a  full  description  of  this  collaboration).  

4

“Teaching the  POOC   most  certainly  changed   my  relationship  to   technology  ...  I  think  the   most  important  change  in   my  view  has  to  do  with   the  importance  of   expanding  the  academic   palette  so  to  speak,  of   what  it  takes  to  be  an   engaged  scholar.”   ~  Wendy  Luttrell,   Professor,  Urban   Education,  The  Graduate   Center,  CUNY  

2013


MediaCamp Workshops   “There's  a  lot  of  talk   among  sociologists  about   ‘public  sociology’  but  few   of  us  actually  know  how   to  practice  it.  Thanks  to   MediaCamp,  I  now  have  a   better  sense  of  how  to   communicate  my   research  to  non-­‐ academics  and  to   scholars  outside  of  my   fields  of  expertise.  I'm   blogging  about  already-­‐ published  research,  trying   out  new  ideas,  and   making  new  contacts  via   Twitter.  I  look  forward  to   taking  more  workshops  in   the  future!”  

Skills-­‐building sessions  for  intellectuals   who  want  to  combine  research  and   digital  media  for  the  public  good.  

Our first  year  of  MediaCamp  Workshops  suggest  that  there   is  a  strong  interest  in  and  an  unmet  need  among  academic,   activists  for  training  in  media  skills,  both  legacy  media  (e.g.,   writing  op-­‐eds  and  appearing  on  camera)  and  digital  media   (e.g.,  blogging,  Twitter,  using  smartphones),  as  well  as  hybrid  

~ Arlene  Stein,   Professor,  Sociology,   Rutgers  University  

academic-­‐journalism skills  (e.g.,  data  visualization).  We  were  

a unique  academic-­‐journalism  collaboration  between  the  

pleased to  learn  that  people  working  in  non-­‐profits  and   NGOs  were  also  interested  in  acquiring  these  skills.  Through   Graduate  Center  and  the  CUNY  J-­‐School  we  offered  40   workshops  that  reached  over  500  academics  and  activists   (See  Appendices  A,  B,  and  C).  

5

2013


Knowledge Streams,     Open  Access  

Scholars are  knowledge  producers.  Legacy  models  of  academia   demand  that  scholarship  appear  in  bound  volumes,  printed  by   third  party,  for-­‐profit  publishers  for  a  small  audience  of  other   experts.  Today,  how  scholars  produce  that  knowledge  and  what   form  it  takes  is  changing.       A  key  component  of  JustPublics@365  is  creating  new  kinds  of   scholarship.  What  might  have  been  called  “knowledge  products,”   in  a  previous  era,  we  reconceptualized  as  “knowledge   streams.”  These  knowledge  streams,  whether  podcasts,   infographics,  blog  posts  or  digital  videos,  or  documentary  films,   are  available  to  a  broad  audience  and  are  designed  to  reach   beyond  the  traditional  boundaries  of  the  academy  to  wider  

Scholars are  knowledge   producers.  Making  that   knowledge  available  to   everyone  can  help  create   a  more  just,  equitable   society.  

publics.     A  crucial  factor  in  creating  new  kinds  of  scholarship  is  availability.   Today,  scholars  who  are  engaged  in  producing  knowledge   digitally  expect  to  be  able  to  share  it  openly.    Unfortunately,  the   legacy  system  of  academic  publishing  often  stands  in  the  way  of   making  knowledge  available  to  everyone.  When  researchers  can   easily  share  their  work  with  a  wider  audience,  it  can  help  create  a   more  just  and  equitable  society.    We  did  not  anticipate  how   important  these  issues  would  be  at  the  start  of  the  project,  and   have  worked  to  incorporate  them  throughout.     Throughout  2013,  JustPublics@365  has  worked  to  foster  the   creation  of  knowledge  streams.    For  example,  our  Podcast  Series   has  featured  interviews  with  academics  doing  research  on   inequality  and  working  toward  social  justice.    Some  of  the  people   and  topics  featured  included  were  Frances  Fox  Piven  talking   about  a  lifetime  of  engaged  scholar-­‐activism  around  the  rights  of   poor  people;  Juan  Battle  discussing  his  large-­‐scale  study  of  over   5,000  LGBT  people  of  color;  Margaret  Chin,  talking  about  her   research  with  immigrant  garment  workers  in  New  York  City;  and   Joseph  Straus,  explaining  his  work  that  connects  disability  studies   and  music  theory.    Even  though  the  series  only  began  appearing   on  iTunes  in  September,  the  podcasts  have  already  been  listened   to  more  than  540  times.  

6

2013


1 2

Metrics that  Matter   Scholars  completing  their  PhD’s  today  have  

“Altmetrics,” are  alternative  metrics  for  

likely never  known  a  world  without  the  

assessing scholarly  impact  by  including  

web. For  these  young  scholars,  the  Internet  

wider engagement  through  digital  media.  

is simply  part  of  their  social  world,  and  thus  

Throughout 2013,  JustPublics@365  has  

they frequently  incorporate  it  into  their  

been on  the  forefront  of  discussions  about  

research. At  the  same  time,  some  senior  

altmetrics. In  March,  2013  we  convened  a  

academics are  experimenting  with  crowd-­‐

panel of  experts  on  this  topic  as  part  of  our  

sourcing, steaming  video,  and  blogging  in  

first Summit.    We  have  also  compiled  our  

ways that  supplement  older  forms  of  

own altmetrics  (See  Appendix  F.)  

publishing research  and  create  new  kinds  of   peer-­‐review.  Yet,  most  scholars  working  in   these  new  forms  of  knowledge  creation  do   not  know  how  to  incorporate  these  into   traditional  reward  structures  and  measures   of  scholarly  impact  required  within   academic  institutions.    

“Altmetrics” are  “alternative  metrics”   for  measuring  scholarly  impact  by   including  wider  engagement  through   digital  media.   7  

2013


1 2

Metrics that  Matter   The  desire  to  make  an  impact  taps   a  deep  human  need.  

significance and  meaning  in  the  IF.  Citation  

There are  two  trends  that  seem  clear  in  this  

Index (SSCI),  simply  count  the  number  of  

new terrain  of  measuring  scholarly  impact:  

peer-­‐review mentions  of  an  individual  

1) the  value  of  traditional  metrics,  such  as  

article, and  do  not  include  mentions  on  

journal impact  factors  and  citation  indices,  

social media.    

are being  questioned;  and  2)  new  tools  are  

At the  same  time,  a  number  of  new  digital  

emerging.

tools are  emerging  that  make  it  easier  to  

A growing  number  of  people  are  challenging  

measure social  media  mentions  of  scholarly  

the validity  of  journal  “impact  factor  (IF),”  a  

work.  Some  of  these  new  tools  include  

traditional measure  of  scholarly  impact,  for  

FigShare, PlumAnalytics,  ImpactStory,  and  

the way  these  numbers  are  easily  gamed  by  

the analytics  in  Academia.edu  (shown  at  

journal publishing  and  citation  practices  

left). These  represent  a  significant  advance  

that artificially  inflate  IF.  Along  with  this  

in measuring  scholarly  impact.  

indices, such  as  the  Social  Sciences  Citations  

critique, many  have  pointed  to  a  lack  of  real  

8

2013


Partnerships

We were  surprised  by  the  number  of  individuals,   institutions,  and  organizations  that  stepped  forward   and  wanted  to  partner  with  JustPublics@365.    

Making a  Connection.   From  the  very  beginning  of  JustPublics@365,  people  representing  a  wide  range  of   organizations  and  institutions  told  us  they  wanted  to  “make  a  connection”  with  us  around  the   work  we  were  doing.    This  was  not  part  of  our  original  proposal  for  this  work  but  we  tried  to   make  every  effort  to  respond  and  incorporate  these  opportunities.     Just  a  few  of  those  who  expressed  interest  in  partnerships  include  the  following:  

u

Universities and  colleges   ♦ Duke  University  

u

Advocacy and  activists   groups  

u

Professional associations  

♦ Drug Policy  Alliance  

♦ American Sociological   Association  

♦ Rutgers  University  

♦ Center  for   NuLeadership  

♦ Scholar Strategy   Network  

♦ St. Joseph’s   University  

♦ Fortune  Society  

♦ University of  Bologna    

♦ East Harlem   Preservation  

♦ Black Scholars   Network,    

♦ Harvard University  

♦ London School  of   Economics  

♦ British Sociological   Association   ♦ History  of  Science   Society  

We plan  to  expand  and  strengthen  these  connections  in  ways  that  promote  social  justice.  

9

2013


10

Social Justice   Impressions  

2013


Background on  Measuring  Scholarly  Impact   The  idea  of  measuring  impact  within  scholarly  disciplines  has  for   most  of  the  last  century  relied  on  counting  the  number  of   citations  within  peer-­‐reviewed  journals.  For  example,  an   individual  scholar’s  listing  in  the  Social  Sciences  Citation  Index,   which  compiles  number  of  citations  in  journals,  has  been  a   frequently  consulted  resource  in  tenure  and  promotion  cases.     When  the  focus  shifts  to  measuring  impact  of  scholarship  on  the   broader  world,  there  is  no  consensus  about  measuring  impact.   Fields  such  as  public  health  are  accustomed  to  measuring  how   laws  and  social  policy  can  affect  the  health  of  large  populations,   but  are  less  clear  on  how  scholarship  might  affect  those  laws  and   social  policy.  Social  scientists  are  more  accustomed  to  pointing   out  the  negative  impacts  of  social  structures  of  inequality  rather   than  on  the  positive  impact  of  their  scholarship,  yet  in  a  recent   survey  92%  of  social  science  scholars  said  they  wanted  “more   connection  to  policymakers.”  (Chronicle  of  Higher  Education,   http://chronicle.com/article/Social-­‐Scientists-­‐Seek-­‐ New/141305/).  Scholars  in  the  humanities  conceptualize  impact   on  the  world  in  terms  of  the  number  of  undergraduate  majors   and  completed  PhDs.     Recently,  attention  in  higher  education  has  turned  to  new  ways  of   measuring  scholarly  impact  by  incorporating  the  use  of  social   media.  There  is  a  range  of  tools  available  now  to  automate  the   collection  of  this  data  (e.g.,  FigShare,  PlumAnalytics,   ImpactStory),  however  these  are  not  yet  widely  used  forms  of   measurement  within  academia.  Many  scholars  worry  about  the   turn  to  social  media  as  a  measure  of  impact  for  the  kinds  of   information  that  often  gets  rewarded  in  an  economy  of  “likes.”   For  example,  Jill  Lepore,  writes:  “...when  publicity,  for  its  own   sake,  is  taken  as  a  measure  of  worth,  then  attention  replaces   citation  as  the  author’s  compensation.  One  trouble  here  is:  Peer   review  may  reward  opacity,  but  a  search  engine  rewards  nothing   but  outrageousness.”  ~  (Chronicle  of  Higher  Education,   http://chronicle.com/article/The-­‐New-­‐Economy-­‐of-­‐ Letters/141291/).    Other  scholars,  such  as  Joan  Greenbaum,   express  concerns  about  the  use  of  social  media  metrics  to  surveil   faculty  and  urge  us  to  “resist  metrification”  of  our  work   (Presentation,  Graduate  Center,  April  22,  2013).    

Social Justice   Impressions  

Assessing the  Impact     of  JustPublics@365  

How do  you  measure   an  idea  that  takes   hold  and  changes   peoples’  lives,  public   policy,  the  way   knowledge  is  created   and  shared?   Answering  this  has   been  part  of  the   challenge   JustPublics@365  has   taken  on  in  this  year.  

Given this  context,  the  task  of  measuring  impact  must  be  joined   with  the  aim  of  social  justice,  that  is,  developing  not  just  new   metrics,  but  metrics  that  matter.   11  

2013


Metrics that  Matter  

Central to  JustPublics@365  has  been  the  drive  to  create  new  kinds  of  digital  scholarship  that   connects  to  activism  and  transforms  the  broader  world.    We  distinguish  between  different   types  of  metrics:  transactional  and  transformational.   Transactional  and  Transformational  Metrics   Transactional   (quantitative,  easier  to  measure)   citations,  downloads   mentions  on  social  media,  legacy  media   changes  to  public  policy  

Transformational (qualitative,  more  difficult  to  measure)   identify  allies,  establish  relationships   collaborations,  co-­‐created  projects   cultural,  social  changes  

(Adapted from  Pastor,  Ito  and  Rosner,  “Transactions,  Transformations  and  Translations:  Metrics  that  Matter  for   Building,  Scaling  and  Funding  Social  Movements,”  Report,  October,  2011,  http://bit.ly/1n9TQGi.).  

In  this  schema,  transactional  metrics  include  quantitative  measures,  such  as  citations,  downloads,   mentions  on  social  or  legacy  media,  and  ultimately,  changes  to  public  policy.  There  are  several  aspects  of   this  that  are  useful  for  thinking  about  impact.    First,  note  that  both  traditional  measures  of  scholarship   (citation  counts)  and  altmetrics  (downloads,  mentions  on  social  media)  are  transactional.  In  the  digital  era,   quantitative  measures  linked  to  social  media  have  the  distinct  advantage  of  being  relatively  easy  to  mine   for  data.  Such  tools  are  excellent  for  measuring  reach,  but  less  nuanced  for  measuring  deeper  impact.     Real  social  change  is  not  as  easily  quantified  by  social  media  reach.  To  assess  the  impact  of  scholarship  on   the  broader  social  world  requires  qualitative  measures.  Qualitative  measures  include  things  like  identifying   allies,  building  relationships,  collaborating  and  co-­‐creating  projects,  and  ultimately  bring  about  cultural  and   social  changes.  While  digital  media  plays  a  role  in  bringing  about  these  changes,  merely  counting  the   number  of  social  media  mentions  does  not  adequately  capture  the  scope  of  how  social  change  happens   and  the  impact  it  has  on  people’s  lives.  

In the  following  summary  of  our  evaluation  metrics,  we  offer  both  transactional  and   transformational  metrics  to  assess  the  impact  of  JustPublics@365  at  the  nexus  of   activists,  journalists,  and  academics  working  on  issues  of  social  justice  and  inequality.   12  

2013


Website and   Social  Networks  

Website: The  JustPublics@365   website  has  had  11,797  visits  to  the   site  and  39,046  page  views.   Additionally,  the  JustPublics@365   Project  has  743  unique  email   subscribers.  

One of  the  primary  ways  the  JustPublics@365  Projects   reaches  a  wide  and  diverse  audience  is  through  its  website   and  social  networks.  Each  of  these  digital  and  social  media   outlets  provides  the  project  with  an  opportunity  to  share   its  message  and  develop  a  robust  means  of  assessing   scholarly  work  in  the  public  sphere.  

Website Traffic  and  Email  Subscriptions   Total  Visits  to  JustPublics@365  Website  

11,797

Total Page  Views  

39,046

Total Email  Subscribers    

743

Email  Subscriptions  by  Topic   JustPublics@365  General  Interest  

713

MediaCamp

216

Participatory Open  Online  Course  

75

Media-­‐Academic-­‐Activist Events  (Summits)    

91

Twitter: The  JustPublics@365   Project’s  Twitter  feed  is  followed  by   906  people  and  has  put  out  1,790   Tweets.  These  tweets  have  been   retweeted  396  times  and  favorite   271  times.  The  JustPublics@365   Project  is  on  43  lists.  

Facebook: The  JustPublics@365   Project  has  been  liked  on  Facebook   321  times,  which  has  resulted  in  an   estimated  Facebook  Reach  of  2,222   people  based  on  the  “reach”   calculated  by  the  project’s  most   recent  posts.   13  

Twitter Metrics   Twitter  Followers  

906

Tweets

1,790

Twitter Retweets  

396

Twitter Favorites  

271

Twitter Lists    

43

Facebook Metrics   Facebook  Likes  

321

Facebook Reach  

2,222

2013


Summits

Media-­‐Academic-­‐Activist Events  

The JustPublics@365  Project  executed  three  “summits”  over  the   course  of  the  year.  The  first  summit,  “Reimagining  Scholarly   Communication  for  the  21st  Century”  explored  a  set  of  questions   about  big  changes  in  scholarly  communication.  The  second   summit,  “Resisting  Criminalization  through  Academic-­‐Media-­‐ Activist  Partnerships”  brought  activists,  academics,  and  journalists   together  in  intimate  round  tables  to  tackle  issues  of  criminalization   and  public  health.  The  third  summit,  “Leading  the  Way:  Toward  a   Public  Health  &  Safety  Approach  to  Drug  Policy  in  New  York”  was  a   collaboration  between  the  Drug  Policy  Alliance  and   JustPublics@365.  This  final  summit  brought  together  activists,   journalists,  academics,  and  people  from  the  non-­‐profit  world  to   discuss  ways  to  establish  more  effective  approaches  to  drug  policy   in  New  York  State.     These  events  were  very  well  attended  and  positively  evaluated.   The  Summits  had  a  combined  total  of  1,405  attendees  and  had   546  mentions  on  Twitter.  

Overall Summit  Metrics   Total  number  of  attendees  

1,405

Mentions on  Twitter  

546

14

2013


Summit One  

Reimagining Scholarly  Communication     for  the  21st  Century     (Graduate  Center,  CUNY)   The  first  summit,  “Reimagining  Scholarly  Communication  for  the   21st  Century”  was  held  March  1st-­‐  6th  at  the  City  University  of  New   York.  This  weeklong  series  of  events,  explored  a  set  of  questions   about  big  changes  in  scholarly  communication.  Specifically,  the   summit  asked:  “How  is  the  web  changing  the  way  we  produce   knowledge,  engage  with  publics  beyond  the  academy  and  work  for   social  justice?  What  does  it  mean  to  be  a  scholar  in  the  digital  era?   How  is  the  measure  of  scholarly  impact  changing?”   These  questions  are  crucial  to  the  mission  of  the  JustPublics@365   Project  and  the  attendance  at  this  Summit  reflects  the  need  to   address  these  questions  in  the  academy.  There  were  a  total  of  465   participants  in  attendance  and  a  total  of  142  tweets  about  the   summit.  

Summit One  Attendance   Theorizing  the  Web  Conference  

337

Anthea Butler  Talk  

14

AltMetrics Panel  

12

OccupyData Hackathon  

37

Poverty, YouTube,  and  Representation  

25

Hands-­‐on Workshops  (9)  

45

Data Stories  at  James  Gallery  

55

Total

546

15

2013


Summit Two  

Resisting Criminalization  through   Academic-­‐Media-­‐Activist  Partnerships   (Graduate  Center,  CUNY)   The  second  Summit,  “Resisting  Criminalization  through  Academic-­‐ Media-­‐Activist  Partnerships”  was  held  on  April  22,  2013  at  the  Graduate   Center,  CUNY.  The  focus  of  this  Summit  was  on  fostering  dialogue   between  academics,  activists,  and  media  outlets.  As  such,  the   conference  was  largely  focused  on  roundtables,  which  allowed  for   partnerships  and  creative  brainstorming  around  pressing  social  justice   issues.     The  first  roundtable  was  focused  on  the  issue  of  the  “prison  pipeline,”   the  second  was  focused  on  Stop  And  Frisk,  and  the  third  was  focused  on   criminalization  and  public  health  models.     In  addition  to  these  roundtables,  this  Summit  featured  a  panel  on  data   visualization  titled,  “Visualizing  Big  Data,  Resisting  Criminalization.”  This   panel  was  comprised  of  an  academic  (Amanda  Hickman),  journalists   (María  Elena  Torre,  Brett  Stoudt,  and  Scott  Lizama)  and  an  activist   (Sabrinia  Jones).  The  experts  discussed  a  range  of  vizualizations  that   may  help  in  efforts  to  resist  and  transform  criminalization.   The  event  closed  with  a  screening  of  the  award-­‐winning  documentary,   “The  House  I  Live  In”  followed  by  a  panel  discussion  on  “Resisting.  The   panel  was  comprised  of  a  varied  group  of  people  all  fighting  to   transform  drug  policy.  On  the  panel  was  Liliana  Segura  (The  Nation),   Gabriel  Sayegh  (Drug  Policy  Alliance),  Glenn  E.  Martin  (Fortune  Society)   and  Alondra  Nelson  (Associate  Professor,  Columbia  University,  author   Body  and  Soul).   Summit  Two  Attendance   Roundtable:  School  to  Prison  

337

Roundtable: Stop  and  Frisk  

14

Roundtable: Public  Health  

12

Visualizing Big  Data  

37

The House  I  Live  In  Screening  

25

The House  I  Live  In  Panel  

45

Total

285

16  

2013


Summit Three  

Leading the  Way:  Toward  a  Public  Health  &   Safety  Approach  to  Drug  Policy  in  New  York   (Buffalo,  NY)   The  third  Summit,  “Leading  the  Way:  Toward  a  Public  Health  &  Safety   Approach  to  Drug  Policy  in  New  York”  was  held  in  Buffalo,  New  York  and   developed  in  conjunction  with  the  Drug  Policy  Alliance  and  Baldy  Center   for  Law  &  Social  Policy.  The  conference  was  convened  to  provide  a   forum  for  coming  up  with  solutions  to  change  current  drug  policies  and   establishing  more  effective  approaches  to  drug  policy  in  New  York.   Six  hundred  people  attended  the  conference  over  the  course  of  two   days  and  the  JustPublics@365  Project  was  integral  to  the  creation  of  a   social  media  presence  at  the  conference.   Summit  Three  Attendance   The  House  I  Live  In    

100

Panel Discussion  and  Community  Dialogue     About  the  War  on  Drugs  With  Special  Guests  

135

Keynote and  Opening  Plenary  

135

Prevention: Rethinking  Prevention  for     Healthier,  Safer  Communities  

35

Harm Reduction  Pillar:  Beyond  Seat  Belts     and  Syringe  Exchange  

25

Public Safety  Pillar:  Improving  Public  Safety     Through  Collaboration  Across  Sectors  

40

Treatment and  Recovery  Pillar:  Re-­‐envisioning  Treatment   for  the  21st  Century  

35

Leading the  Way  on  Drug  Policy:  Towards  a     Public  Health  and  Safety  Approach  

135

Total

600

This Summit  was  a  co-­‐created  event  with  the  Drug  Policy  Alliance.    In   addition  to  the  successful  quantitative  measures  from  this  Summit,  this   event  also  marked  an  extremely  profitable  collaboration  with  the  Drug   Policy  Alliance  (DPA).  As  a  result  of  that  collaboration,  DPA  staff  have   attended  MediaCamp  Workshops,  and  we  have  created  innovative   knowledge  streams  for  their  use  to  reach  policy  makers  and  activists.   DPA  continues  to  actively  use  the  assets  we  developed  through  our   collaboration  to  extend  the  reach  of  their  advocacy  campaigns.    (To  see   more  about  this  work,  please  visit:  http://bit.ly/1ipC6G5).   17  

2013


In the  spring  semester  of  2013,  JustPublics@365  launched  a   participatory,  open,  online  course,  also  known  as  a  POOC.  The   course  was  an  interdisciplinary  graduate  course  on  economic,   educational,  and  housing  inequality  with  a  particular  focus  on  East   Harlem,  and  working  with  community  partners  in  that   neighborhood.  The  hashtag  we  used  was  #InQ13.  

Overall #InQ13  POOC  M etrics   Number  of  Events  in  East  Harlem  (open  to  the  public)    

4

Number of  classes  livestreamed  

12

Number of  East  Harlem  Community  Partners  

18

Number of  people  required  to  produce  the  POOC  

19

Number of  GC  students  enrolled  

20

Number of  Guest  Speakers  

26

Number of  open  access  readings  

117

Number of  blog  posts  +  digital  projects  

247

Number of  Tweets  using  the  #InQ13  hashtag  

315

Number of  attendees  at  public  events  

485

Total number  of  video  views  

2,824

Total number  of  website  visits  

8,791

Number of  countries  represented  in  website  views    

26

Academic-­‐ Activist-­‐Media Pedagogy   The  #InQ13  POOC   The  goal  of  the   #InQ13  POOC  was  to   find  a  way  for  faculty   across  disciplines  to   collaborate,  to  open   education  to  a  wider   public,  and  to  work  in   and  with  a  community   toward  social  justice.  

All of  the  students  enrolled  through  the  Graduate  Center  completed  the  course  successfully  (100%),  as  did  one   student  who  participated  exclusively  online  (1%).    Overall,  people  engaged  with  the  course  as  more  adult   learners,  less  interested  in  a  certificate  of  completion  than  in  an  engaging  dialogue  about  subjects  that  matter   to  them.  A  handful  of  online  students  revealed  that  they  were  interested  in  returning  to  graduate  school,  and   so  the  course  served  as  a  way  for  them  to  “audit”  a  graduate  course  as  a  prospective  student.  A  large  portion   of  those  who  attended  the  public,  in-­‐person  events  were  from  the  neighborhood  of  East  Harlem.  And,  when   we  examined  the  analytics  for  the  site,  we  had  visitors  from  26  countries  outside  the  U.S.  who  participated  in   the  course  online.   One  of  the  most  innovative  aspects  of  the  POOC  was  the  collaboration  with  Graduate  Center  librarians  who   worked  to  ensure  that  all  the  assigned  readings  for  the  course  were  legitimately  open  access,  that  is  available   to  anyone  (including  those  with  an  academic  affiliation).  In  this  innovative  turn,  the  POOC  was  a  successful   experiment  in  developing  truly  “open”  education.  

18

2013


MediaCamp Workshops   The  MediaCamp  Workshops  have  been  extremely  successful  collaboration  between  the  academic  and   journalism  bodies  of  CUNY.    The  MediaCamp  Workshops  have  generated  enthusiasm  for  developing  skills   necessary  to  connect  scholarly  work  to  a  wider  public  and  to  social  justice  issues.  The  JustPublics@365  Project   has  delivered  41  MediaCamp  workshops  and  trained  403  academics  and  activists.  There  is  a  high  demand  for   these  MediaCamp  Workshops  with  more  than  a  thousand  people  who  indicated  interest  in  attending  but  were   ultimately  not  able  to  come.  Thus,  the  numbers  reported  here  reflect  a  huge  unmeet  need  for  this  kind  of   training  within  higher  education.   MediaCamp  Metrics   Number  of  MediaCamps  

41

Total number  of  people  who  attended  MediaCamps  

403

Total number  of  people  who  signed  up  for  M ediaCamps  

1,093

Participants  found  these  workshops  most  useful  for  promoting  research  beyond  the  academy.  Participants   strongly  agreed  that  they  learned  a  great  deal  and  had  excellent  instructors.  Participants  were  more  likely  to   recommend  the  workshop  to  graduate  students  than  to  faculty  or  administrators.  

Feedback from  Participants   (1  “Strongly  Agree”  —  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research  

1.88

Useful for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy  

1.75

Useful for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy  

1.42

Learned a  Great  Deal  

1.49

Great Instructor  

1.35

Would Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty  

1.45

Would Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators  

1.73

Would Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students  

1.35

Scholars,  activists,  and  people  from  the  non-­‐profit  sphere  who  participated  in  the  JustPublics@365   MediaCamp  Workshops  clearly  indicated  that  the  MediaCamp  filled  a  distinct  need:  they  taught  people  who   are  creating  knowledge  how  to  share  that  knowledge  with  a  wider  audience.  Typical  of  the  written  feedback   we  received  was  this  participant  who  said:  

"Fantastic workshop!!!  I've  been  struggling  with  ways  to  engage  with  a  broader   public  in  my  work  and  I  feel  much  better  prepared  now.  Thank  you!"   19  

2013


The JustPublics@365  Project  has  developed   innovative  knowledge  streams  that  push  the   bounds  of  scholarly  knowledge  production.  In   contrast  to  conventional  academic  knowledge   products  (e.g.,  books,  peer-­‐reviewed  articles)   that  sit  behind  locked  paywalls,  these   knowledge  streams  are  open,  flowing  out  of  the   academy,  and  intended  for  public  audiences.  We   created  a  variety  of  new  knowledge  streams   including,  videos,  podcasts,  data  visualizations,   audio  blog  posts,  and  a  curated  Twitter  stream.  

Innovative Knowledge   Streams  

Podcasts Number  of  podcasts  

10

Total number  of  podcast  plays  

601

Ratings on  iTunes  

5/5

Videos Number  of  videos  

33

Total number  of  plays  

3,504

Total number  of  loads  

96,000

Total number  of  likes  

13

The JustPublics@365  Podcast  Series  highlights  research   by  CUNY  faculty  on  issues  of  social     justice  and  inequality.  The  series  features  the  work  of   faculty  from  the  Political  Science,  Sociology,  English,   Psychology,  Social  Work,  Anthropology,  and  Music   departments.  In  each  episode,  a  faculty  member  shares   insights  from  their  research  and  explains  how  their   research  has  an  impact  on  the  world  beyond  academia.   The  podcast  has  been  live  since  October  1,  2013  and   already  has  601  unique  plays.  

JustPublics@365 produced  33  videos,  which  have  been   viewed  3504  times.  

Data Visualizations   Number  of  data  visualizations  

4

Total number  of  data  visualization   downloads  

261

An innovative  form  of  easily  and  beautifully  illustrating   complex  ideas,  data  visualizations  and  infographics  are   increasingly  important  to  this  changing  field.  

20  

2013


Social Justice   Impressions   through   Storytelling  

While quantitative  measures  can  tell  us  something  about   reach  or  popularity  that  is  only  a  small  part  of  impact  and   social  change.  For  a  fuller,  deeper  understanding  of   impact  that  creates  real  social  change,  we  must  turn  to   storytelling.    

In what  follows,  we   offer  three  stories   about  social  justice   impressions  created   by  JustPublics@365.  

Of course,  storytelling  is  as  ancient  as  the  human   experience.  Storytelling  is  also  part  of  the  repertoire  of   what  academics  do;  when  crafting  a  tenure  letter,  we  are   telling  a  story  about  a  scholar’s  impact  on  the  field  in   which  they  are  expert.       And,  storytelling  is  increasingly  what  thought  leaders  turn   to  in  a  variety  of  fields  -­‐  in  policy,  in  activism  and  social   movement  building,  in  journalism,  and  in  philanthropy    -­‐   in  order  to  demonstrate  impact  (e.g.,  “Storytelling  &   Social  Change:  A  Strategy  for  Grantmakers,”   http://workingnarratives.org/project/story-­‐guide/).  

21

2013


Example 1       Stop-­‐and-­‐Frisk   As  we  began  JustPublics@365,  the  issue  of  stop-­‐and-­‐frisk  policing  policy  was  at  the  top  of  many   citizens  and  organizations  agendas  for  social  change.    With  staggering  statistics  revealing  that  over   400,000  young  black  and  Latino  men  were  routinely  stopped,  questioned  and  frisked  by  New  York   Police  Department,  often  with  no  charges  or  arrest  following  that  encounter,  many  citizens  saw   this  as  a  racially  biased  practice  that  unfairly  targeted  minority  residents.  By  the  end  of  2013,  New   Yorkers  had  spoken  at  the  voting  booths  giving  a  clear  mandate  to  newly  elected  Mayor  Bill   diBlasio  to  end  the  controversial  stop-­‐and-­‐frisk  policy.    Early  into  2014,  diBlasio  seems  to  be   keeping  his  word  and  has  dropped  an  appeal  by  the  city  and  has  said  his  administration  will  comply   with  the  judge’s  order  to  end  stop-­‐and-­‐frisk.  The  movement  to  end  stop-­‐and-­‐frisk  was  a  years’  long   effort  for  social  justice  in  New  York  City  that  involved  scholars,  community  activists,  artists,   filmmakers,  journalists,  lawyers,  and  judges.     Joining  the  fight  near  the  end  of  this  long  effort,  JustPublics@365  was  able  to  contribute  to  social   change  around  stop-­‐and-­‐frisk  through  a  Summit  in  April,  2013.  We  deepened  and  extended  this   work  through  an  online  topic  series  in  November,  2013  that  highlighted  the  work  of  scholars,   activists,  and  journalists  engaged  in  the  struggle  to  end  stop-­‐and-­‐frisk.     The  “Resisting  Criminalization”  Summit  featured  morning  roundtables  of  scholars,  activists  and   journalists;  an  afternoon  discussion  of  data  visualization  used  in  the  effort  to  end  stop-­‐and-­‐frisk,  as   in  the  Morris  Justice  Project;  a  screening  of  “The  House  I  Live  In,”  followed  by  an  evening  panel   with  activists,  journalists,  and  scholars.  The  large  crowd  of  nearly  three  hundred  people  included   one  woman  from  Harlem  who  spoke  movingly  in  the  Q&A  about  the  devastating  impact  stop-­‐and-­‐ frisk  policing  had  on  her  family.  

22

2013


Stop-­‐and-­‐Frisk The  Summit  was  widely  praised  for  the  quality  of  presenters  and  the  productive  conversations   fostered.  As  just  one  example,  a  participant  who  attended  Resisting  Criminalization  (#Resist13)   said,  “Sitting  at  JustPublics@365’s  "Resisting  Criminalization"  roundtable  discussion  on   #StopAndFrisk  Great  convo  w/  powerful  folks!  #Resist13.”   One  of  the  activists  involved  in  the  evening  panel  discussion  was  Glenn  E.  Martin.  At  the  time,   Martin  was  as  the  Vice  President  of  Development  of  Public  Affairs  at  the  Fortune  Society,  a  non-­‐ profit  social  service  and  advocacy  organization  geared  to  helping  people  re-­‐enter  their   communities  from  jail  or  prison.    Since  then,  Martin  has  founded  his  own  non-­‐ profit  JustLeadershipUSA  (http://www.justleadershipusa.org/)  (JLUSA).  The  goal  of  Martin’s  JLUSA   organization  is  to  “cut  the  US  prison  population  in  half  by  2030.”    In  many  ways,  JLUSA  is  an   extension  of  the  movement  to  end  stop-­‐and-­‐frisk  by  broadening  that  goal  to  the  problem  of  mass   incarceration.  Martin  credits  JustPublics@365  for  shaping  his  thinking  about  messaging  for  JLUSA,   and  for  ways  to  innovatively  bring  together  scholars,  activists  and  journalists  for  social  justice.   In  November  2013,  we  created  an  online,  social  justice  topic  series  that  once  again  brought   together  activists,  journalists,  and  academics.  Rather  than  the  face-­‐to-­‐face  energy  of  the  Summit,   this  online  topic  series  featured  the  work  of  scholars,  activists  and  journalists  on  the   JustPublics@365  blog.  We  curated  videos,  created  podcasts,  and  featured  interviews  and  dialogues   stop-­‐and-­‐frisk,  as  well  as  innovative  scholarly  approaches  to  data  about  this  issue  such  as  a   multimedia  timeline  of  key  events  in  the  movement.  

(continued)

23

2013


Stop-­‐and-­‐Frisk At  the  end  of  the  series,  we  compiled   all  the  posts  into  one,  easy-­‐to-­‐ download  information  guide  for  use  by   activists  in  communities  and  college   classroom  teachers.  One  reader   tweeted,  “Great  important  project   ‘Where  Are  We  Now?  StopNFrisk’   http://cuny.is/1s0      #StopNFrisk.”  As   one  measure  of  the  reach  of  this  work,   Piper  Kerman,  (author  “Orange  is  the   New  Black”),  shared  the  information   guide  with  her  34,000+  followers.    

The impact  of  the  guide  extends  to  hundreds  of  college  classrooms  as  well.  When  we  shared  the   stop-­‐and-­‐frisk  information  guide  through  our  Facebook  page,  it  received  174  “likes”  and  7  “shares”   to  other  Facebook  pages.  We  shared  it  on  the  American  Sociological  Association  page,  one   professor  replied:  

(continued)

24

“Thanks so  much  for  posting!  Just  in  time  too.  I  just  lectured   about  this  yesterday  but  we're  returning  to  it  next  week.”   2013  


Example 2       P2PH:  Punishment  to  Public  Health   At  our  third  Summit  in  May  2013,  we  

In December  (2013)  and  January  

helped the  Drug  Policy  Alliance  focus  

(2014), we  curated  a  related  social  

attention on  the  release  of  their  

justice topic  series  that  highlighted  the  

“Blueprint for  a  Public  Health  and  

ways scholars,  activists  and  journalists  

Safety Approach  to  Drug  Policy”  

work to  further  social  justice  by  

(http://www.drugpolicy.org/blueprint),

shifting the  public  policy  framework  

a project  co-­‐created  with  scholars  at  

from one  of  “punishment”  to  “public  

the New  York  Academy  of  Medicine.  

health,” or  P2PH.  The  research  is  clear  

The Blueprint  (as  it  is  done)  uses  data,  

that our  policy  of  mass  incarceration  

both quantitative  and  qualitative,  to  

of the  past  30  years  damages  our  

make a  convincing  policy  argument  for  

society, and  that  a  public  health  

shifting the  prevailing  response  to  

approach is  a  more  humane,  just  way  

drugs from  one  of  criminalization  and  

to organize  social  response  to  the  

punishment to  one  of  public  health.  

issue of  drug  use.  As  we  did  with  the   previous  series,  we  compiled  all  this   content  into  an  easy-­‐to-­‐download   information  guide,  and  made  it   available  on  Amazon/Kindle  as  well.  

25

2013


P2PH: Punishment  to  Public  Health   The  success  of  our  work  on  shifting  the  prevailing  discourse  and  policy   from  one  of  punishment  to  public  health  is  perhaps  best  described  in   terms  of  our  successful  collaboration  with  the  Drug  Policy  Alliance;  here,   gabriel  sayegh,  (New  York  State  Director,  DPA)  writes:  

“We were  initially  pleased  to  collaborate  with  JustPublics@365   because  the  idea  of  linking  activists  and  scholars  through  digital   media  was  itself  compelling.  But  what  we  got  out  this   collaboration,  however,  far  exceeded  our  expectations  and   opened  up  new  areas  of  thinking  and  action  that  we  linked   directly  to  our  reform  campaigns.  Our  staff  attended   JustPublics@365  trainings  on  social  media  best  practices,  while   the  JP@365  staff  created  a  digital  communications  infrastructure   for  an  international  conference  we  convened  with  the  University   of  Buffalo.  We’re  actively  using  the  tools,  products  and  skills   develop  through  this  collaboration  to  enhance  and  strengthen   our  advocacy  campaigns.  We’re  grateful  to  Dr.  Daniels  and  her   team  at  JP@365  for  their  important  work.  Were  it  up  to  me,  this   collaboration  would  not  only  continue,  but  would  be  expanded.”   (continued)  

26

2013


P2PH: Punishment  to  Public  Health   Participants  in  our  summits  have  taken  the  information  and  skills  gained   through  public  dialogues  with  scholars,  activists,  and  journalists  and   applied  it  to  their  own  work,  as  Rebecca  Tiger,  Assistant  Professor  at   Middlebury  College  notes:  

“After attending  JustPublics@365’s  Summit  ‘Resisting   Criminalization’  and  a  roundtable  on  public  health  responses  to   drug  use,  I’ve  been  inspired  to  do  a  podcasting  series  about  the   town  where  I  live,  known  as  the  ‘epicenter  of  the  drug  epidemic’   in  Vermont.  I  persuaded  my  institution,  Middlebury  College,  to   use  some  resources  to  develop  a  podcasting  workshop  for  our   faculty  that  I  attended.  Now,  equipped  the  knowledge  about  how   to  create  a  podcast,  I  intend  to  create  my  own  series  that  is  a   hybrid  of  scholarship,  journalism  and  activism.  This  was  all   inspired  by  JP365!”  

(continued)

27

2013


Example 3       Transforming  Higher  Education   Change  happens  slowly  in  academia,  but  in  a  short  year’s  time  JustPublics@365  has  had  a   significant  impact  on  higher  education.    Some  of  this  impact  is  revealed  in  stories  about  the   partnerships,  collaborations  and  co-­‐created  projects  that  have  emerged  from  the  first  year  and   extend  into  the  future.  For  example,  Professor  Elizabeth  Higginbotham  (Harvard,  African  and   African  American  Studies),  reached  out  to  us  about  co-­‐creating  a  JustPublics@365  Summit  at   Harvard  around  the  changing  dynamics  of  scholarly  communication.  Professor  Arlene  Stein   (Rutgers  University,  Sociology),  took  several  MediaCamp  Workshops  and  launched  her  own  blog   and  Twitter  accounts  to  engage  a  wider  audience  about  sociological  research.    Professor  Annette   Lareau,  (University  of  Pennsylvania,  Sociology),  reached  out  to  JustPublics@365  in  her  capacity  as   President  of  the  15,000-­‐member  American  Sociological  Association  to  help  build  capacity  among   members.  Amy  Beth,  Dean  of  Library  Services  at  Bergen  Community  College  and  Director  of  New   chapter  of  Virtual  Academic   Library  Environment  (VALE),   invited  co-­‐PIs  Daniels  and   Thistlethwaite  to  present  at  a   statewide  meeting  about  the   open  access  innovation  in  the   POOC.  From  that  meeting,   participants  were  impressed   by  the  infographic  about  open   access  JustPublics@365   created,  and  asked  to  re-­‐use  it   at  their  own  institutions.   (Concept:  Jill  Cirasella;  Graphic  Design:  Les  Larue)  

28

2013


Transforming Higher  Education   The  first  Summit,  in  March  2013  on  “Scholarly  Communication,”  drew  almost   four  hundred  participants,  including  some  of  the  leading  figures  in  scholarship   about  this  area.  One  of  those  thought  leaders,  prominent  scholar  in  thinking   about  the  Internet,  social  media  and  big  data,  danah  boyd  (Principal  Researcher   at  Microsoft)  describes  her  involvement  at  the  first  JustPublics@365  Summit  in   these  terms:  

“I've had  the  great  fortune  to  attend  various  JustPublics@365   events,  watch  projects  unfold,  and  engage  with  participants  in   the  community.  I've  been  truly  impressed  with  the  team's  ability   to  connect  otherwise  disparate  communities  and  engage  diverse   constituents  around  complex  social  and  cultural   issues.    JustPublics@365  is  the  forefront  of  changing  the   conversation  about  higher  education  and  social  change.”   The  work  of  transforming  higher  education  is  difficult  to  measure  in  quantitative   ways,  but  comes  through  in  the  stories  that  people  tell  about  their  encounters   with  the  work  we  have  done.    For  February  and  March,  2014  we  are  extending   the  work  of  the  initial  Summit  on  “Scholarly  Communication,”  through  a  topic   series  featuring  scholars,  activists  and  documentary  filmmakers,  librarians  and   information  science  experts.    At  the  close  of  the  series,  we  will  once  again  create   a  downloadable  e-­‐book  of  all  the  content  produced.   (continued)  

29

2013


Transforming Higher  Education   Beyond  the  impact  on  individuals,  JustPublics@365  has  had  an  impact  on  other   institutions  of  higher  education,  and  other  funded  initiatives.    As  David  Parry,   Professor,  St.  Joseph’s  University,  Philadelphia,  writes:  

“Since its  founding  last  year  JustPublics@365  has  served  as  a   model  for  academia  and  civic  engagement.  As  a  scholar  who   values  this  type  of  work  I  have  been  particularly  interested  in  the   approach  they  have  taken  to  engaging  the  community  and   fostering  socially  engaged  academic  pursuits.  But  more  than   admiring  the  work  they  do,  JustPublics@365  served  as  one  of  the   models  and  inspirations  here  at  my  home  institution,  Saint   Joseph's  University.  Similar  to  Just  Publics@365  we  have  started   our  own  initiative,  Beautiful  Social,  which  seeks  to  perform   community  focused  academic  work,  engaging  our  local  activists,   journalists,  and  civic  organizations  around  the  Philadelphia  area   through  digital  media.  A  few  months  ago  we  talked  with  a  donor   organization  about  helping  to  establish  an  endowment  fund  to   support  this  type  of  work.  When  working  with  the  institution  we   pointed  to  JustPublics@365  and  used  it  as  a  model  for  the  kind  of   civically  engaged  work  that  we  wanted  to  emulate.  I  am  pleased   to  say  that  we  were  successful  in  establishing  this  endowment   and  thus  will  be  able  to  continue  this  type  of  work  within  our  own   community.”   (continued)  

30

2013


Transforming Higher  Education   Finally,  JustPublics@365  has  had  a  deep  impact  at  our  home  institution,  within   CUNY.    Regarding  the  transformations  within  the  Graduate  Center,  CUNY,   Michelle  Fine,  (Distinguished  Professor,  CUNY)  had  this  to  say:  

“I like  to  think  about  the  long  reach  of  JustPublics@365  through  several  streams  of   influence.    There  is  of  course  the  most  basic  impact:  JustPublics@365  stretches  the   reach  of  critical,  public  scholarship;  JustPublics@365  has  enabled  the  Graduate  Center   to  reach  a  variety  of  audiences  well  beyond  the  contours  of  the  academy,  both  into   policy  institutes  and  communities,  through  social  media  and  on  the  ground  organizing,   in  traditional  scholarly  circles  and  subaltern  spaces  where  dissent  and  the  public   imagination  are  mingling  to  rebuild  tomorrow.       “More  than  this,  JustPublics@365  has  created  capillaries  of  possibility  by  provoking  new   conversations  and  building,  expanding  critical  discourse  communities  -­‐  not  only  with   elites,  other  universities  -­‐  but  also  with  communities,  social  movements,  activists  who   are  local  and  those  far  away.  JustPublics@365  places  The  Graduate  Center  on  a  national   map  of  provocative  ideas,  networks,  relationships  and  actions  by  activating  networks  of   ideas  that  circulate  through  NYC  but  well  beyond.    We  have  been  able  to  connect  to   indigenous  communities  in  Alaska,  Arizona,  New  Zealand,  for  instance,  when   conducting  a  conference  on  indigenous  knowledges  on  Fifth  Avenue;  bring  together   those  in  East  Harlem  (US)  and  those  in  Leeds  (UK)  struggling  with  privatization.   JustPublics@365  provides  a  social  media  analogue  to  the  circuits  of  critical   scholarship/activism  for  which  the  Graduate  Center  is  so  well  recognized,  thus  offering   legs  for  ideas,  new  discourse  communities,  capillaries  of  ideas  for  justice  and  rendering   porous  the  relations  between  the  academy,  social  policy,  communities  and  social   movements.”   (continued)  

31

2013


Lessons   Learned  

This project  is  valuable,  rewarding,  and  challenging   in  various  ways,  and  there  were  some  elements  that   presented  significant  challenges  in  the  first  year.  The   primary  challenge  was  the  one-­‐year  timeline   stipulated  by  the  grant,  which  meant  that  we  were   running  on  a  dotcom  startup  timetable  within  the   ploddingly  slow  context  of  academia.  Despite  these   and  other  challenges,  we  still  accomplished  a  great   deal  and  learned  how  in  future  years  we  could  make   the  project  even  more  successful.  

32

2013


1 2

Pacing and  Timing  

We underestimated  the  significant  

of the  project  start,  we  were  at  full  staff  and  

disconnect between  the  pace  of  “Internet  

hosting our  first  major  event.  

time” juxtaposed  to  the  academic  calendar  

Institutionalizing some  of  the  practices  of  

and the  slow  pace  of  change  within  higher  

JustPublics@365 will  simply  take  more  than  

education.  We  also  misjudged  the  time  it  

a year  to  accomplish,  though  we  made  

would take  to  institutionalize  successful  

excellent headway.  Several  of  our  initiatives  

elements of  the  project  within  CUNY.  

(elements of  MediaCamp  training,  

Academic institutions,  ours  included,  often  

podcasting and  videography,  and  an  

have established  protocols  and  structures  

embrace of  open  access  scholarly  

that can  be  slow  to  navigate  and  resistant  to  

publishing) have  been  embraced  by  CUNY.    

change. Still,  given  these  challenges  we  

More importantly,  we  are  moving  ahead  

were able  to  staff  up  quickly,  build  on  

with institutionalizing  JustPublics@365  

existing relationships  both  within  the  GC  

programs more  broadly  by  introducing  

and beyond  (e.g.,  the  Theorizing  the  Web  

them to  academic  professional  associations,  

Conference) in  order  to  get  into  the  field  as  

such as  the  American  Sociological  

soon as  possible.  In  fact,  within  two  months  

Association.

33

2013


Senior Faculty  

For the  most  part,  faculty  were  eager  to  embrace  the  goal  of  JustPublics@365  to  get  scholarly   work  into  the  public  sphere,  but  some  senior  faculty—those  with  tenure  and  at  the  later   stages  of  their  career—were  among  the  most  challenging  to  persuade.  For  example,  one   senior  faculty  member,  with  arms  crossed  against  chest,  declared  that  he  would  “not  be  made   to  learn  the  Internet.”  However,  this  was  not  uniformly  the  case,  as  some  senior  faculty  such   as  Distinguished  Professor  Leith  Mullings,  Anthropology,  GC,  CUNY  (President  of  the  American   Anthropological  Association),  who  immediately  understood  and  embraced  the  goals  of  the   project.  What  we  learned  is  that  those  faculty  who  were  most  keenly  driven  by  a  passion  for   social  justice  were  among  those  who  were  most  eager  to  sign  on  to  JustPublics@365.  Thus,   what  we  now  understand  is  that  these  faculty  are  the  ones  we  need  to  target.  Therefore,   rather  than  doing  a  broad  sweep  of  faculty,  we  need  to  focus  on  those  who  do  social  justice   research  already.  

34

2013


Reward Structure  of  Academia  

In a  recent  New  York  Times  op-­‐ed,  “Professors  We  Need  You!”  (2/15/14)  Nicholas   Kristof  appealed  to  academics  to  join  the  public  sphere  and  resist  “self-­‐ marginalization.”  A  roundup  discussion  about  this  was  retweeted  by  Kristof   demonstrating  the  interest  of  the  Times  and  others  in  solving  the  problem  that   relatively  few  academics  enter  the  public  sphere.  Of  course,  it  is  precisely  this   problem  that  JustPublics  @365  is  designed  to  address.  

The resistance  among  faculty  to  venturing  into  the  public  sphere  is  motivated,  in   part,  by  a  professional  structure  that  is  not  geared  to  reward  such  engagement,   particularly  in  the  realm  of  social  media.  Tenure  and  promotion  committees   within  higher  education  for  the  most  part,  reward  publication  in  journals  with  high   “impact  factors,”  however  unreliable  a  measure  of  scholarly  impact  these  may  be.   The  move  to  include  digital  scholarly  knowledge  production  in  tenure  and   promotion  reviews  is  in  its  nascency  and  only  rarely  is  community  engagement   valued  as  an  element  of  academic  success.  We  discovered  no  existing  tenure  and   promotion  guidelines  that  articulate  both  digital  media  and  social  justice  as   measures  of  success  for  faculty.  It  is  not  surprising  that  faculty  who  have   succeeded  under  previous  regimes  of  knowledge  production  are  reluctant  to   change  nor  that  early  career  scholars  are  uncertain  about  what  skills  and  types  of   work  will  be  valued  for  career  advancement.  Still  there  is  an  ongoing,  unmet  need   for  academics  to  thoroughly  engage  with  issues  in  the  public  sphere  –  one  that   JustPublics@365  addresses.   35  

2013


1 2

Metrics

Closely tied  to  discussions  of  the  reward  

this issue  to  faculty  and  the  kinds  of  

structure within  academia  are  questions  

strategies that  we  will  develop.  For  

about the  value  of  “metrics”  in  higher  

example, we  will  need  to  employ  tools  that  

education. In  our  first  year,  we  learned  that  

help faculty  measure  their  impact  with  

faculty resistance  to  new  metrics  was  

minimal investments  of  time,  such  as  

deeper than  anticipated.  Rather  than  seeing  

FigShare, PlumAnalytics,  ImpactStory.  

alternative metrics  that  measure  

Secondly, we  must  insure  that  the  metrics  

engagement with  social  media  and  the  real  

are not  measurements  for  the  sake  of  

world impact  of  scholarship  as  beneficial,  

measurements but,  in  fact,  capture  what  

many faculty  perceive  it  as  another  tool  of  

our target  faculty  care  most  about  –  the  

accountability that  could  create  new  

impact of  their  work  on  advancing  social  

burdens on  their  time  and  tax  their  already  

justice. Finally,  we  must  work  with  

stretched capacity.  Others  resist  any  

university administrators  to  insure  that  

initiatives that  are  seen  as  the  metrification  

metrics are  tied  to  concrete  incentives  for  

of work.  This  lesson  is  incredibly  valuable  

faculty.

because it  will  guide  both  how  we  frame  

36

2013


Partnerships

From the  moment  that  JustPublics@365  was   launched,  we  were  inundated  with  requests  to   form  partnerships.  This  is  clearly  a  sign  that   JustPublics@365  is  an  idea  whose  time  has   come.  However  we  lacked  the  staffing  required   to  accommodate  these  requests  and  had  to   decline  a  number  of  enticing  opportunities  to   develop  new  partnerships  and  projects.  

37

2013


1 2

Participatory Open  Online  Course  (POOC)  

This was  a  hugely  successful  experiment  in  

The POOC  prompted  a  successful  

open education.  It  has  created  an  archive  

collaboration with  GC  librarians  who,  

and a  resource  for  the  community  of  East  

through making  course  readings  open  to  all  

Harlem. However,  we  underestimated  the  

readers for  the  course,  introduced  

upfront investment  needed  in  building  

participating faculty  to  the  concepts  and  the  

relationships, identifying  open  access  

workings of  open  access  scholarship.  It  also  

materials, and  the  labor  needed  to  produce  

helped solidify  library  strategy  to  target  

high quality  video.  Nonetheless,  we  created  

faculty engaged  with  social  activism  

a lasting  resource  for  East  Harlem  and  a  

research to  model  open  access.  Open  access  

unique collaboration  between  community  

self-­‐archiving increases  the  readership  and  

and academia  (http://inq13.gc.cuny.edu).  

the impact  of  scholarship  and  furthers  these  

For any  such  future  efforts,  we  would  allot  

goals eagerly  embraced  by  targeted  

more time  and  staff  resources  to  do  the  

scholars.

necessary groundwork  and  relationship   building.  However,  with  this  successful   POOC  behind  us,  we  expect  that  future   efforts  would  take  less  time  and  go  more   smoothly.  

38

2013


Staffing

This project  drew  on  a  talented  group  of  graduate   students  that  served  the  project  well.  The  challenge,   however,  is  that  graduate  students  are  often  pressed   for  time  due  to  competing  demands,  and  as  it  should   be,  leave  to  pursue  different  career  goals.  These   competing  demands  led  to  staff  turnover,  as  well  as   unevenness  in  the  staffing  capacity  at  times.  It  became   clear  to  us  early  on  that  what  JustPublics@365  needs  is   a  full-­‐time  staff  dedicated  solely  to  the  project.  

39

2013


JustPublics@365 is  a  bold  new   experiment,  and  it  remains  the  only   project  of  its  sort  in  higher   education.  We  were  pleased  by  the   enthusiastic  response  it  received,   and  we  have  clearly  tapped  into  an   unmet  need.  We  look  forward  to   taking  these  lessons  learned  into   future  years  as  we  both  scale  up  and   institutionalize  JustPublics@365.  

40

2013


1 2 3

Appendix A:  MediaCamp  Workshop  Schedule   (January–August  2013)  

January:   u

u

u

1/15, Being  Interviewed  on   Camera:  Big  Media  for  Academics  

u

1/22, Social  Media  for  Academics    

u

1/22, Social  Media  for  Research   Impact  

u

1/24, Beyond  Bullet  Pts  for   Academics  

March:

u

3/28, Smart  Photos  with  Smart   Phones   3/29,  OpEd  Pitches  &  Pieces:   Framing  Research  for  Public   Audiences  

April: u

4/3, Blogging:  Social  Media   Practicum  

u

4/4, Twitter:  Social  Media   Practicum  

u

u

4/5, Analytics  and  Metrics:   Advanced  Social  Media   4/8,  Being  Interviewed  on   Camera  

May: u

5/15, OpEd  Pitches  &  Pieces:   Framing  Research  for  Public  

u

41

Smartphones

u

Framing Research  for  Public  

Smartphones

Audiences

5/31, Analytics  and  Metrics:  

June:

u

u

u

u

6/13, Data  Visualization:  Making   Sense  of  the  Numbers  

u

u

6/13, Smart  Photos  with   Smartphones  

u

7/17, Big  Media:  Being   Interviewed  on  Camera  

u

General Audience   u

u

u

u

5/16, Twitter:  Social  Media  

Practicum

7/25, Data  Visualizations:  Making  

8/9, Being  Interviewed  on   Camera:  Big  Media  for  Academics  

October: u

10/29, Twitter:  Social  Media   Practicum  

November: u

11/1, Blogging:  Social  Meda   Practicum  

u

7/25, Blogging:  Social  Media   Practicum  

8/9, Data  Visualizations:  Making   Sense  of  the  Numbers  

7/24, Smart  Photos  with  Smart   Phones  

8/8, Twitter:  Social  Media   Practicum  

7/24, Op-­‐Eds,  Pitches  and  Pieces:   Framing  Your  Research  for  a  

8/8, Smart  Photos  with   Smartphones  

6/11, Being  Interviewed  on   Camera:  Big  Media  for  Academics  

July:

8/8, Blogging:  Social  Media   Practicum  

u

u

8/8, Op-­‐Ed  Pieces  and  Pitches:  

5/30, Smart  Photos  with  

Advanced Social  Media  

Audiences u

5/29, Smart  Videos  with  

August: American   Sociological  Association   Workshops  

5/22, Blogging:  Social  Media   Practicum  

1/8, OpEd  Pitches  &  Pieces:   Framing  Research  for  Public   Audiences    

u

u

u

11/5, Analytics  and  Metrics:   Advanced  Social  Media  

u

11/20, Advanced  Twitter  

Sense of  the  Numbers  

December:

7/25, Twitter:  Social  Media  

u

Practicum

12/9, Live  Multimedia  Blogging  

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data  

On a  scale  of  1-­‐5,  with  1  being  “Strongly  Agree”  and  5  being  “Strongly   Disagree,”  participants  strongly  agreed  that  workshop  instructors   were  excellent  (1.29)  and  agreed  that  they  learned  a  great  deal  (1.37).   The  participants  were  enthusiastic  in  their  written  responses  to  the   workshops,  with  comments  such  as:   u

"This was  incredibly  educational.  Thank  you  so  much!"    

u

"Fantastic workshop!!!  I've  been  struggling  with  ways  to  engage   with  a  broader  public  in  my  work  and  I  feel  much  better  prepared   now.  Thank  you!"    

u

"Great workshop!  Informative,  great  for  those  with  little   experience.  Would  recommend  to  other  grad  students."    

u

"Great. Great  instructor  -­‐  clean  blunt  advice.  Great  specific   contact  info  for  editors.  Thanks!!"    

u

"I think  this  was  great.  Good  attention  to  the  main  qualities/goals:   clear,  timely,  interesting  and  timely,  and  the  call  to  the  recently   published  author  was  so  helpful."    

u

"I'd love  an  ongoing  series  (once  a  month?)  for  (New  York  area)   faculty."    

u

"Fantastic workshop!  Deb  is  fabulous.  I'd  like  to  attend  other   JustPublics@365  workshops.”  

u

"These courses  are  wonderful.  More  please!"  

u

"Very, very  happy  with  the  instructor.  He  was  knowledgeable,   friendly,  and  lucid."  

u

"Excellent presentation.  Thank  you!"  

In summary,  participants  rated  all  the  MediaCamp  workshops  in   positive  terms.  A  detailed  report  of  both  the  numerical  ratings  and   written  comments  are  provided  in  the  pages  that  follow.   42  

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data   Social  Media  for  Academics  (Intro/Intermediate)   January  22,  2013   Sandeep  Junnarkar     Eighteen  people  signed  up  for  the  workshop  and  eight  of  those  who  signed  up  attended.  All  eight  of  the  participants   who  signed  up  completed  the  survey.  Two  out  of  the  eight  participants  were  assistant  professors,  three  were   professors,  and  one  was  outside  CUNY.         Participants  Attendance  and  Evaluation   Signed  Up   18   Attended        8   Completed  Survey      8     Participants  found  the  workshop  most  useful  for  promoting  research  beyond  the  academy  and  least  useful  for  doing   research.  Participants  agreed  that  they  learned  a  great  deal  and  had  a  great  instructor.  Participants  were  more  likely   to  recommend  the  workshop  to  faculty  and  graduate  students  than  to  administrators.       Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   2.00   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   1.50   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   1.13   Learned  a  Great  Deal   1.63   Great  Instructor   1.63   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   1.50   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   2.00   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   1.50       Feedback     u

“Another great  workshop”  

u

“Twitter element  great,  Wordpress  element  too  thin  -­‐  not  enough  time  to  stop  and  discuss  and  understand.”  

u

“Very helpful  -­‐  a  lot  to  take  it  on  Wordpress  but  at  least  this  is  a  roadmap”  

u

“Great! Thanks  so  much!”  

u

“Loved the  hands-­‐on  nature  of  the  session!”    

43

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Blogging: Social  Media  Practicum   April  3,  2013   Sandeep  Junnarkar     Nine  people  signed  up  for  the  first  Blogging  for  Academics  workshop  and  only  one  attended.  The  participant  who   attended  found  the  workshop  very  useful  for  doing  research,  promoting  research  within  and  beyond  the  academy.   The  participant  also  thought  the  workshop  taught  her  a  great  deal  and  that  she  had  a  great  instructor.  The   participant  strongly  agreed  that  she  would  recommend  the  workshop  to  faculty,  administrators,  and  graduate   students.     Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   1.00   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   1.00   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   1.00   Learned    a  Great  Deal   1.00   Great  Instructor   1.00   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   1.00   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   1.00   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   1.00       Feedback:     u

   

44

“Every session  was  fabulous,  incredibly  useful.  This  and  the  Tweet  workshop  taught  by  the  same  instructor;   posted  his  notes  which  has  become  an  incredibly  useful  resource  for  me.  Hands  on  instructions  to  refer  to,   including  best  practices.  Very  professional  and  wonderful  applications  for  academics,  or  anyone  with  a  small   business.  Appreciated  the  timeliness  of  the  series  in  todays  changing  media  landscape,  and  provided  concrete   tips  to  get  on  board!”  

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Blogging: Social  Media  Practicum   May  22,  2013   Sandeep  Junnarkar     Twenty-­‐one  participants  signed  up  for  the  second  Blogging  for  Academics  workshop  and  thirteen  attended  the   workshop.  Out  of  the  thirteen  that  attended  the  workshop,  four  completed  the  survey.       Participants  Attendance  and  Evaluation   Signed  Up   21   Attended     13   Completed  Survey      4     Out  of  the  four  participants  who  filled  out  the  survey,  two  were  graduate  students,  one  was  an  associate  professor,   and  one  was  outside  CUNY.       Professional  Breakdown  of  Students   Graduate  Students   2   Assistant  Professors   0   Associate  Professors   1   Professors   0   Outside  CUNY   1     Participants  were  neutral  on  whether  this  workshop  was  useful  for  doing  research  or  promoting  research  outside  the   academy.  Participants  were  neutral  on  whether  they  learned  a  great  deal  and  seemed  ambivalent  whether  they   would  recommend  the  workshop  to  faculty  or  administrators  but  agreed  that  they  would  recommend  the  workshop   to  graduate  students.       Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   2.75   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   2.25   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   2.50   Learned  a  Great  Deal   2.50   Great  Instructor   2.25   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   2.50   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   2.50   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   2.00     Feedback:     u

“Informative workshop.  Thanks!”  

u

“Please do  increase  the  capacity  of  the  classes,  haven't  been  able  to  register  for  the  advanced  blogging  workshop   and  would  love  to.  Thanks.”    

45

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Blogging: Social  Media  Practicum   July  25,  2013   Sandeep  Junnarkar     Thirty-­‐one  participants  signed  up  for  the  workshop  and  ten  attended.  Out  of  the  ten  that  attended  ten  filled  out  the   survey.     Participants  Attendance  and  Evaluation   Signed  Up   31   Attended     10   Completed  Survey   10     Those  who  completed  the  survey  strongly  agreed  that  they  learned  a  great  deal  and  strongly  agreed  that  they  had  a   great  instructor.  Participants  found  the  workshop  most  useful  for  doing  research,  but  also  agreed  it  was  useful  for   promoting  research  within  and  beyond  the  academy.  Participants  were  most  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to   faculty  and  least  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to  graduate  students.         Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   1.78   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   2.10   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   1.82   Learned  a  Great  Deal   1.36   Great  Instructor   1.45   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   1.36   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   1.54   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   1.67     Participants  strongly  agreed  that  their  work  engaged  social  issues  of  social  justice  and  or  inequality.  They  agreed  that   they  wanted  to  get  their  work  out  to  activists  or  traditional  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public.  They  agreed  that   their  work  engaged  traditional  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public  and  felt  strongly  that  their  work  engages  social   media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public.       Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   My  Work  Engages  Social  Issues/Issues  of  Social  Justice  and/or  Inequality   1.43   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Activists   2.14   My  Work  Engages  Traditional  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   1.57   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Traditional  Media   1.42   My  Work  Engages  Social  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   1.14   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  the  Public   1.14       Feedback:     u

“Excellent! Now  I  need  to  go  home  and  write  blog  posts.”    

u

“Great initiative.”    

46

2013  


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Blogging: Social  Media  Practicum     August  8,  2013     Twelve  people  attended  the  “Blogging:  Social  Media  Practicum”  workshop.  All  twelve  of  the  participants  who   attended  completed  the  survey.       Participants  found  the  workshop  most  useful  for  promoting  research  beyond  the  academy  and  least  useful  for  doing   research.  Participants  agreed  that  they  learned  a  great  deal  and  had  a  great  instructor.  Participants  were  more  likely   to  recommend  the  workshop  to  faculty  and  graduate  students  than  to  administrators.  They  agreed  the  workshop   was  useful  for  promoting  research  within  and  beyond  the  academy  but  did  not  find  it  highly  useful  for  doing  research.       Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   2.56   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   1.89   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   1.67   Learned  a  Great  Deal   1.56   Great  Instructor   1.33   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   1.33   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   1.67   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   1.33       Participants  agreed  that  their  work  engaged  social  issues  of  social  justice  and  or  inequality  and  that  they  wanted  to   get  their  workout  to  activists  and  the  public.  While  they  had  a  strong  desire  to  get  their  research  out  to  the  public   and  activists  they  were  less  likely  to  belief  that  their  work  engaged  traditional  media  or  engaged  social  media.       Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   My  Work  Engages  Social  Issues/Issues  of  Social  Justice  and/or  Inequality   1.75   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Activists   1.88   My  Work  Engages  Traditional  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   2.75   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Traditional  Media   2.13   My  Work  Engages  Social  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   2.5   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  the  Public   1.75     Feedback     u

“Very, very  happy  with  the  instructor.  He  was  knowledgeable  friendly  and  lucid.”  

u

“Excellent presentation.  Thank  you.”  

u

“These courses  are  wonderful.  More  please!”    

47

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Blogging: Social  Media  Practicum   November  1,  2013   Sandeep  Junnarkar     Thirty-­‐nine  participants  signed  up  for  the  workshop  and  twenty-­‐two  attended.  Out  of  the  twenty-­‐two  that  attended   seven  filled  out  the  survey.       Participants  Attendance  and  Evaluation   Signed  Up   39   Attended     22   Completed  Survey   7     Those  who  completed  the  survey  agreed  that  they  learned  a  great  deal  and  strongly  agreed  that  they  had  a  great   instructor.  Participants  found  the  workshop  most  useful  for  promoting  research  beyond  the  academy,  but  also   agreed  it  was  useful  for  promoting  research  within  and  doing  research.  Participants  were  most  likely  to  recommend   the  workshop  to  faculty  and  graduate  students  and  least  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to  administrators.         Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   2.67   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   1.5   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   1.16   Learned  a  Great  Deal   1.5   Great  Instructor   1.33   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   1.17   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   1.33   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   1.17     Participants  agreed  that  their  work  engaged  social  issues  of  social  justice  and  or  inequality.  They  agreed  that  they   wanted  to  get  their  work  out  to  activists  or  traditional  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public.  They  agreed  that  their   work  engaged  traditional  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public  and  felt  that  their  work  engages  social  media  as  a   means  to  reach  the  public.         Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   My  Work  Engages  Social  Issues/Issues  of  Social  Justice  and/or  Inequality   1.5   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Activists   2.17   My  Work  Engages  Traditional  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   1.83   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Traditional  Media   1.67   My  Work  Engages  Social  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   2.17   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  the  Public   1.67           48  

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Blogging: Social  Media  Practicum  (cont’d)   November  1,  2013   Sandeep  Junnarkar     Feedback:     u

“Thank you  for  offering  the  workshops!  I  found  Blogging  to  be  extremely  helpful  and  comprehensive  for  a  novice   like  myself.  I  thought  Sandeep  was  an  excellent  instructor  and  I  very  much  appreciated  his  low-­‐key,  non-­‐ judgmental  stance.”  

u

“This  is  a  great  program  and  is  so  so  so  needed  to  bridge  the  gap  between  the  twitter  feeding,  blogging,   websited,  up  and  coming  generation  of  grad  students  and  the  wanting  to  keep  up  with  the  program  faculty  who   still  need  to  be  in  the  game  even  as  the  rules  are  changing  almost  daily.      Plus,  in  the  age  of  self-­‐publication  and   consequent  lack  of  credible  information,  giving  academics  the  tools  they  need  to  communication  actual,   researched,  accurate,  information  to  the  general  public,  which  is  quite  hungry  for  it,  is  crucial  in  this  day  and  age.   “    

49

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Twitter: Social  Media  Practicum   April  4,  2013   Sandeep  Junnarkar     Nine  participants  signed  up  for  the  workshop  and  one  attended.  The  participant  rated  the  workshop  very  highly.  She   found  it  useful  for  doing  research  and  promoting  research  within/beyond  the  academy.  She  felt  she  had  learned  a   great  deal  and  had  a  great  instructor.  She  was  equally  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to  faculty,  administrators,   and  graduate  students.       Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   1.00   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   1.00   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   1.00   Learned  a  Great  Deal   1.00   Great  Instructor   1.00   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   1.00   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   1.00   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   1.00     Feedback:     u

50

“This workshop  was  wonderful-­‐  Twitter  a  How-­‐To  from  start  to  finish.  Great  mix  of  prepared  notes/  instructions   to  be  used  as  a  future  reference,  and  hands-­‐on  guidance  of  creating  an  account  and  use  of  best  practices.  Very   useful,  fantastic  professor!"    

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Twitter: Social  Media  Practicum   May  16,  2013   Sandeep  Junnarkar     Twenty-­‐three  people  signed  up  for  the  workshop  and  fourteen  attended.  Nine  out  of  the  fourteen  who  attended   completed  the  survey.       Participants  Attendance  and  Evaluation   Signed  Up   23   Attended     14   Completed  Survey      9     Participants  found  the  workshop  most  useful  for  promoting  research  beyond  the  academy  and  were  neutral  on   whether  the  workshop  was  useful  for  research  or  promoting  research  within  the  academy.  Participants  agreed  that   they  learned  a  great  deal  and  had  a  great  instructor.  Participants  were  most  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to   faculty  and  graduate  students.       Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   2.25   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   2.25   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   1.75   Learned    a  Great  Deal   2.13   Great  Instructor   1.75   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   1.75   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   1.88   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   1.75     Feedback:     u

51

“Very helpful.  There  is  no  other  way  I  would  have  joined  Twitter!  Thank  you.”    

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Twitter: Social  Media  Practicum   July  25,  2013   Sandeep  Junnarkar     Twenty-­‐six  participants  signed  up  for  the  workshop  and  seven  attended.  Out  of  the  seven  that  attended  seven  filled   out  the  survey.       Participants  Attendance  and  Evaluation   Signed  Up   26   Attended     7   Completed  Survey   7     Those  who  completed  the  survey  strongly  agreed  that  they  learned  a  great  deal  and  had  a  great  instructor.   Participants  found  the  workshop  most  useful  for  promoting  research  beyond  the  academy  but  also  strongly  agreed  it   was  useful  for  doing  and  promoting  research  within  the  academy.  Participants  were  most  likely  to  recommend  the   workshop  to  faculty  and  administrators  and  least  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to  graduate  students.         Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   1.29   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   1.17   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   1.0   Learned  a  Great  Deal   1.0   Great  Instructor   1.14   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   1.0   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   1.0   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   1.71     Participants  agreed  that  their  work  engaged  social  issues  of  social  justice  and  or  inequality.  They  agreed  that  they   wanted  to  get  their  work  out  to  activists  or  traditional  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public.  They  agreed  that  their   work  engaged  traditional  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public  and  felt  that  their  work  engages  social  media  as  a   means  to  reach  the  public.       Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   My  Work  Engages  Social  Issues/Issues  of  Social  Justice  and/or  Inequality   1.71   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Activists   1.142857143   My  Work  Engages  Traditional  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   1.714285714   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Traditional  Media   1.5   My  Work  Engages  Social  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   1. 2   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  the  Public   1. 2         52  

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Twitter: Social  Media  Practicum  (cont’d)   July  25,  2013   Sandeep  Junnarkar     Feedback:     u

"Thank you  *so*  much!  This  was  excellent.  I  had  no  idea  how  to  use  twitter  and  I'm  pretty  sure  this  will  be  great   for  me!"    

u

"I think  it  is  important  to  have  a  letter  or  certificate  of  completion."  

 

53

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Twitter: Social  Media  Practicum   August  8,  2013   Sandeep  Junnarkar     Thirteen  people  attended  the  “Twitter:  Social  Media  Practicum”  workshop.  All  thirteen  of  the  participants  who   attended  completed  the  survey.       Participants  found  the  workshop  most  useful  for  promoting  research  beyond  and  within  the  academy  and  slightly  less   useful  for  doing  research.  Participants  tended  to  strongly  agree  that  they  learned  a  great  deal  and  had  a  great   instructor.  Participants  were  slightly  more  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to  faculty  and  graduate  students  than   to  administrators.       Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   1.7   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   1.5   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   1.5   Learned  a  Great  Deal   1.55   Great  Instructor   1.36   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   1.4   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   1.45   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   1.36       Participants  agreed  that  their  work  engaged  social  issues  of  social  justice  and  or  inequality.  They  also  agreed  that   they  wanted  to  get  their  work  out  to  a  wide  public  audience.       Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   My  Work  Engages  Social  Issues/Issues  of  Social  Justice  and/or  Inequality   2   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Activists   2.56   My  Work  Engages  Traditional  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   2.9   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Traditional  Media   2.3   My  Work  Engages  Social  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   2.22   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  the  Public   1.6         Feedback     u

54

“Excellent  presentation.  Thank  you!”    

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Twitter: Social  Media  Practicum   October  29,  2013   Sandeep  Junnarkar     Thirty-­‐eight  participants  signed  up  for  the  workshop  and  twelve  attended.  Five  students  completed  the  survey.       Participants  Attendance  and  Evaluation   Signed  Up   38   Attended     12   Completed  Survey   5       Participants  found  the  workshop  most  useful  for  promoting  research  beyond  and  within  the  academy  and  slightly  less   useful  for  doing  research  or  promoting  research  within  the  academy.  Participants  strongly  agreed  that  they  learned  a   great  deal  and  had  a  great  instructor.  Participants  were  slightly  more  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to  faculty   than  to  graduate  students  and  administrators.         Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   1.80   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   1.80   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   1.60   Learned  a  Great  Deal   1.60   Great  Instructor   1.40   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   1.40   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   1.60   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   1.60     Participants  agreed  that  their  work  engaged  social  issues  of  social  justice  and  or  inequality.  They  agreed  that  they   wanted  to  get  their  work  out  to  activists  or  traditional  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public.  They  agreed  that  their   work  engaged  traditional  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public  and  felt  that  their  work  engages  social  media  as  a   means  to  reach  the  public.       Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   My  Work  Engages  Social  Issues/Issues  of  Social  Justice  and/or  Inequality   2.2   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Activists   2.4   My  Work  Engages  Traditional  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   2.2   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Traditional  Media   2.2   My  Work  Engages  Social  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   2.2   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  the  Public   2.0        

55

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Twitter: Social  Media  Practicum  (cont’d)   October  29,  2013   Sandeep  Junnarkar     Feedback:     u

“Participants agreed  that  their  work  engaged  social  issues  of  social  justice  and  or  inequality.  They  agreed  that   they  wanted  to  get  their  work  out  to  activists  or  traditional  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public.  They  agreed   that  their  work  engaged  traditional  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public  and  felt  that  their  work  engages  social   media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public.”    

u

“Thank you  -­‐  this  was  helpful  for  me  to  begin  my  journey  into  a  new  world  of  media  communications.”    

56

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Advanced Twitter:  Social  Media  Practicum   November  20,  2013   Sandeep  Junnarkar     Forty  participants  signed  up  for  the  workshop  and  twelve  attended.  Out  of  the  twelve  that  attended  two  filled  out   the  survey.       Participants  Attendance  and  Evaluation   Signed  Up   40   Attended     12   Completed  Survey   2     Those  who  completed  the  survey  strongly  agreed  that  they  learned  a  great  deal  and  strongly  agreed  that  they  had  a   great  instructor.  Participants  found  the  workshop  most  useful  for  doing  research,  but  also  agreed  it  was  useful  for   promoting  research  within  and  beyond  the  academy.  Participants  were  most  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to   graduate  students  and  administrators  and  least  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to  faculty.         Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   1.5   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   2.5   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   2   Learned  a  Great  Deal   1   Great  Instructor   1   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   2   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   1   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   1     Participants  agreed  that  their  work  engaged  social  issues  of  social  justice  and  or  inequality.  They  strongly  agreed  that   they  wanted  to  get  their  work  out  to  activists  or  traditional  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public.  They  strongly   agreed  that  their  work  engaged  traditional  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public  and  felt  strongly  that  their  work   engages  social  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public.         Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   My  Work  Engages  Social  Issues/Issues  of  Social  Justice  and/or  Inequality   1.5   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Activists   1.5   My  Work  Engages  Traditional  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   1.0   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Traditional  Media   1.0   My  Work  Engages  Social  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   1.0   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  the  Public   1.0   Feedback:     u

57  

“Great  session,  sorry  I  missed  Basic  Twitter!”     2013  


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Analytics and  Metrics:  Advanced  Social  Media   April  5,  2013   Sandeep  Junnarkar     Fifteen  participants  signed  up  for  the  first  Analytics  and  Metrics  workshop  and  only  one  attended.  The  participant   thought  the  workshop  met  its  objectives  and  strongly  agreed  that  the  workshop  was  useful  for  doing  research  and   promoting  research.         Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   1.00   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   1.00   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   1.00   Learned    a  Great  Deal   1.00   Great  Instructor   1.00   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   1.00   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   1.00   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   1.00     Feedback:   u

58

“This  was  very  helpful  workshop  showing  tools  that  are  part  of  social  media,  and  resources  related  to  social   media  to  gauge  effectiveness  of  messaging,  and  helpful  information  of  when  to  disperse  messaging.  One  does   not  (did  not)  need  to  be  a  master  marketer  to  take  this  class  and  start  using  the  tools.  Incredibly  helpful,   informative,  clear  concise  instruction.”    

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Analytics and  Metrics:  Advanced  Social  Media   May  31,  2013   Sandeep  Junnarkar     Twenty-­‐two  people  signed  up  for  the  second  Analytics  and  Metrics:  Advanced  Social  Media  workshop  and  half  of   those  attended.  Six  of  the  eleven  that  attended  completed  the  survey.       Participants  Attendance  and  Evaluation   Signed  Up   22   Attended     11   Completed  Survey      6     The  participants  who  filled  out  the  survey  thought  that  the  workshop  was  about  equally  useful  for  doing  research  as   well  as  promoting  research  within  and  beyond  the  academy.  Participants  were  most  likely  to  recommend  the   workshop  to  graduate  students  and  least  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to  administrators.           Feedback  from  participants  (1  –  5)   (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   1.67   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   1.60   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   1.67   Learned  a  Great  Deal   1.50   Great  Instructor   1.33   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   1.50   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   1.67   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   1.33     Feedback:   u

“Very useful  tools”  

u

“Thank you!”  

u

“Great, knowledgeable,  friendly  instructor  who  provided  a  wealth  of  info  on  how  to  monitor  social  media   analytics.”    

59

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Analytics and  Metrics:  Advanced  Social  Media   November  5,  2013   Sandeep  Junnarkar     Thirty-­‐seven  people  signed  up  for  the  workshop  and  ten  attended.  One  of  the  ten  that  attended  completed  the   survey.       Participants  Attendance  and  Evaluation   Signed  Up   37   Attended     10   0Completed  Survey      1     The  participant  who  completed  the  survey  strongly  agreed  that  they  learned  a  great  deal  and  strongly  agreed  that   they  had  a  great  instructor.  The  participant  found  the  workshop  most  useful  for  doing  research  and  promoting   research  beyond  the  academy,  but  also  agreed  it  was  useful  for  promoting  research  within  the  academy.  The   participant  was  most  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to  graduate  students  and  administrators  and  least  likely  to   recommend  the  workshop  to  faculty.         Feedback  from  participants  (1  –  5)   (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   1.0   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   2.0   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   1.0   Learned  a  Great  Deal   1.0   Great  Instructor   1.0   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   2.0   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   1.0   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   1.0     The  participant  strongly  agreed  that  her  work  engaged  social  issues  of  social  justice  and  or  inequality.  She  agreed   that  she  wanted  to  get  their  work  out  traditional  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public  and  strongly  agreed  that  she   wanted  to  get  her  work  out  to  activists.  She  agreed  that  her  work  engaged  traditional  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the   public  and  strongly  agreed  that  her  work  engages  social  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public.       Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   My  Work  Engages  Social  Issues/Issues  of  Social  Justice  and/or  Inequality   1.0   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Activists   1.0   My  Work  Engages  Traditional  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   2.0   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Traditional  Media   2.0   My  Work  Engages  Social  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   1.0   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  the  Public   1.0       Feedback:   u

60

“Great  course,  please  keep  me  posted  on  others.  Thanks.”   2013  


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Live Media  Blogging   December  9,  2013   Sandeep  Junnarkar     Forty  participants  signed  up  for  the  workshop  and  eight  attended.  Out  of  the  eight  that  attended  three  filled  out  the   survey.       Participants  Attendance  and  Evaluation   Signed  Up   40   Attended     8   Completed  Survey   3     Those  who  completed  the  survey  agreed  that  they  learned  a  great  deal  and  had  a  great  instructor.  Participants  found   the  workshop  most  useful  for  doing  research,  but  also  agreed  it  was  useful  for  promoting  research  within  and  beyond   the  academy.  Participants  were  most  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to  graduate  students  and  administrators   and  and  least  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to  faculty.         Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   1.67   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   2.0   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   2.0   Learned  a  Great  Deal   1.67   Great  Instructor   2.0   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   1.67   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   1.33   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   1.33     Participants  strongly  agreed  that  their  work  engaged  social  issues  of  social  justice  and  or  inequality.  They  strongly   agreed  that  they  wanted  to  get  their  work  out  to  activists  or  traditional  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public.  They   agreed  that  their  work  engaged  traditional  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public  and  agreed  that  their  work  engages   social  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public.       Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   My  Work  Engages  Social  Issues/Issues  of  Social  Justice  and/or  Inequality   1.0   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Activists   1.33   My  Work  Engages  Traditional  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   1.33   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Traditional  Media   1.67   My  Work  Engages  Social  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   2.0   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  the  Public   1.67      

61

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

OpEd Pitches  &  Pieces:  Framing  Research  for  Public  Audiences     January  8,  2013   Deb  Stead     OpEd  Pitches  &  Pieces:  Framing  Research  for  Public  Audiences  was  offered  at  the  start  of  the  MediaCamp  series.  It   was  very  well  attended;  twenty-­‐seven  of  the  thirty-­‐three  students  who  signed  up  attended.  Out  of  those  that   attended,  twenty-­‐four  completed  the  survey     Participants  Attendance  and  Evaluation   Signed  Up   33   Attended     27   Completed  Survey   24     The  professional  background  of  the  participants  varied.  Four  were  graduate  students,  six  were  assistant  professors,   six  were  associate  professors,  four  were  full  professors,  and  four  were  not  academics.         Professional  Breakdown  of  Students   Graduate  Students   4   Assistant  Professors   6   Associate  Professors   6   Professors   4   Outside  CUNY   4     The  feedback  participants  gave  was  largely  positive.  Students  thought  that  the  workshop  was  most  useful  for   promoting  research  beyond  the  academy  and  least  useful  for  doing  research.  Participants  were  most  likely  to   recommend  this  workshop  to  graduate  students  and  faculty,  but  less  likely  to  recommend  this  workshop  to   administrators.       Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   2.38   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   2.08   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   1.25   Learned    a  Great  Deal   1.50   Great  Instructor   1.25   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   1.46   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   2.04   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   1.50        

62

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

OpEd Pitches  &  Pieces:  Framing  Research  for  Public  Audiences  (cont’d)   January  8,  2013   Deb  Stead     Feedback:     u

“Great workshop.  Great  series.  Thank  you!”  

u

“Although I  enjoyed  the  workshop,  it  turned  out  to  not  be  very  applicable  to  me  (someone  who  was  interested  in   learning  about  how  to  interact  with  the  press,  rather  than  how  to  pursue  the  press).  Maybe  these  things  were   covered  after  the  break  though,  which  is  when  I  had  to  leave.  Thanks  for  offering  this  workshop!”  

u

“I loved  the  input  of  people  who  wrote  op-­‐eds.”  

u

“Fantastic teacher.”  

u

“Great group!”  

u

“Great workshop.  Would  like  more  brainstorming  and  workshopping  on  hooks  and  pegs.”  

u

“This was  really  useful!”  

u

“Overall, a  really  great  session!  The  opportunity  to  hear  from  Trish  Hall  and  academics  who  had  been  published   was  invaluable.  I  would  have  liked  a  little  more  framing  at  the  front  end.  And  I  had  to  leave  at  4  and  since  the   workshop  ran  over,  I  missed  any  wrap  up  or  next  steps.  Maybe  the  workshop  needed  to  be  extended  to  fit   everything  in.”  

u

“Interesting to  see  there  is  a  real  tension  with  the  academics  versus  reporters.  And  perhaps  reporters  could   attend  events  to  understand  _our_  anxieties;  or  perhaps  more  workshops  on  writing  in  a  breezy  way  that  has   integrity  are  needed  for  us.  //  Deb  was  terrific!!  Super  instructor  who  gets  to  the  point.  You  can  feel  she  has  vast   experience.  Taught  me  quite  a  lot.”  

u

“These are  a  wonderful  resource  for  the  academic  community  and  beyond.”  

u

“This highlighted  how  hard  it  is  to  "translate"  academic  work,  but  it's  so  important  for  disseminating  it  and   making  it  accessible  to  the  public,  which  brings  it  out  of  the  academy!  Conversation  with  John  was  really  good!”  

u

“Would have  loved  more  focus  on  tips  for  writing  opeds  more  than  promoting  yourself/  your  research.”    

63

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

OpEd Pitches  &  Pieces:  Framing  Research  for  Public  Audiences     March  29,  2013   Deb  Stead     No  surveys  were  collected  for  this  workshop.          

64

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

OpEd Pitches  &  Pieces:  Framing  Research  for  Public  Audiences     May  15,  2013   Deb  Stead     Twenty  participants  signed  up  for  the  second  round  of  OpEd  Pitches  &  Pieces:  Framing  Research  for  Public  Audiences   workshop.  Out  of  those,  sixteen  attended  the  workshop.  Six  of  those  who  attended  completed  the  survey.         Participants  Attendance  and  Evaluation   Signed  Up   20   Attended     16   Completed  Survey      6     Participants  thought  the  workshop  was  most  useful  for  promoting  research  beyond  the  academy  and  lease  useful  for   doing  research.  Participants  were  most  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to  graduate  students  and  please  likely  to   recommend  the  workshop  to  administrators.  Students  agreed  that  they  learned  a  great  deal  and  that  they  had  a   great  instructor.       Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   2.83   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   2.67   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   1.17   Learned  a  Great  Deal   1.50   Great  Instructor   1.33   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   1.50   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   2.00   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   1.33     Feedback:     u

“Great use  of  phone  to  access  helpful  guest  speakers.  Skype  would  be  an  improvement,  but  the  phone  worked   quite  effectively  for  our  needs.”  

u

“It was  great  to  hear  from  different  experts,  but  I  felt  like  there  could  have  been  more  activities  planned  rather   than  listen  and  then  Q  and  A.  The  part  when  we  broke  out  into  groups  was  so  productive,  it  would  have  been   nice  to  integrate  more  of  that!”    

65

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

OpEd Pitches  &  Pieces:  Framing  Research  for  Public  Audiences     July  24,  2013   Deb  Stead     Twenty-­‐nine  participants  signed  up  for  the  workshop  and  eleven  attended.  Out  of  the  eleven  that  attended  ten  filled   out  the  survey.       Participants  Attendance  and  Evaluation   Signed  Up   29   Attended     11   Completed  Survey   10     Those  who  completed  the  survey  agreed  that  they  learned  a  great  deal  and  agreed  that  they  had  a  great  instructor.   Participants  found  the  workshop  most  useful  for  promoting  research  beyond  the  academy  but  also  agreed  it  was   useful  for  promoting  research  within  the  academy.  Participants  were  most  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to   faculty  and  graduate  students  and  least  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to  administrators.         Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   2.3   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   1.9   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   1.6   Learned  a  Great  Deal   1.5   Great  Instructor   1.5   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   1.4   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   2.1   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   1.4     Participants  strongly  agreed  that  their  work  engaged  social  issues  of  social  justice  and  or  inequality.  They  strongly   agreed  that  they  wanted  to  get  their  work  out  to  activists  or  traditional  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public.  They   agreed  that  their  work  engaged  traditional  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public  and  felt  that  their  work  engages   social  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public.       Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   My  Work  Engages  Social  Issues/Issues  of  Social  Justice  and/or  Inequality   1.0   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Activists   1.22   My  Work  Engages  Traditional  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   1.55   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Traditional  Media   1.44   My  Work  Engages  Social  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   1.78   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  the  Public   1.1          

66

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

OpEd Pitches  &  Pieces:  Framing  Research  for  Public  Audiences  (cont’d)   July  24,  2013   Deb  Stead     Feedback:     u

“This workshop  was  amazing!  The  instructor  was  great.  The  information/ideas  seem  useful  beyond  the   immediate  topic  

u

“Beinert was  fantastic.  His  use  of  a  particular  example  and  getting  us  to  gram  the  op-­‐ed  write  sentences  for  it  etc.   was  fantastic.”  

u

“Thanks! Love  Just  Publics!”  

u

“Thank you  for  this  remarkable  opportunity!  

 

67

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Op-­‐Ed Pieces  and  Pitches:  Framing  Research  for  Public  Audiences   August  9,  2013     Thirty-­‐two  people  attended  the  “Op-­‐Ed  Pieces  and  Pitches”  workshop.  Twenty-­‐eight  of  the  participants  who   attended  completed  the  survey.       Participants  found  the  workshop  most  useful  for  promoting  research  beyond  the  academy  and  less  useful  for  doing   research.  Participants  strongly  agreed  that  they  learned  a  great  deal  and  had  a  great  instructor.  Participants  were   more  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to  faculty  and  graduate  students  than  to  administrators.       Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   2.68   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   2.19   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   1.1   Learned  a  Great  Deal   1.26   Great  Instructor   1.15   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   1.15   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   1.96   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   1.18       Participants  strongly  agreed  that  their  work  engaged  social  issues  of  social  justice  and  or  inequality.  They  strongly   agreed  that  they  wanted  to  get  their  work  out  to  activists  and  agreed  that  their  work  engages  traditional  media  as  a   means  to  reach  the  public.  They  strongly  agreed  that  they  wanted  to  get  their  work  out  to  traditional  media  and  to   the  public.  They  agreed  that  work  engages  social  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public.       Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   My  Work  Engages  Social  Issues/Issues  of  Social  Justice  and/or  Inequality   1.04   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Activists   1.38   My  Work  Engages  Traditional  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   2.17   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Traditional  Media   1.25   My  Work  Engages  Social  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   2.2   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  the  Public   1.17        

68

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Op-­‐Ed Pieces  and  Pitches:  Framing  Research  for  Public  Audiences  (cont’d)   August  9,  2013     Feedback     u

“Great workshop!  Informative,  great  for  those  with  little  experience  (would  recommend  for  other  grad  students).   “  

u

“Thanks, terrific  workshop.  Very  helpful  insights,  Deb  Stead  a  great  facilitator”  

u

“Great Job!”  

u

“Thanks for  a  great  workshop!”  

u

“I'd love  an  ongoing-­‐series    (once  a  month?)  for  (New  York-­‐area)  faculty.  This  is  my  4th  one.  I  really  really  love   them”  

u

“Fantastic workshop!!  I've  been  struggling  with  ways  to  engage  with  a  broader  public  in  my  work,  and  I  feel  much   better  prepared  now.  Thank  you!”  

u

“I think  this  was  great.  Good  attention  to  4  main  qualities/goals  (clear,  timely,  interesting,  and  timely)  and  the   call  to  the  recently  published  author  was  so  helpful”  

u

“Great. Great  instructor.  Clean  blunt  advice.  Great,  specific  contact  info  for  editors.  Thanks!”  

u

“Fantastic Workshop!  Deb  is  fabulous.  I'd  like  to  attend  other  JustPublics  workshops.”  

u

“Thank you  for  making  it  free!  A  lot  of  great  nuggets.”  

 

69

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Being Interviewed  On  Camera:  Big  Media  for  Academics     January  15,  2013   Fred  Kaufman  and  Susan  Farkas     Thirty-­‐seven  participants  signed  up  for  the  first  Big  Media  for  Academics  and  twenty-­‐two  of  those  attended.  Of  the   twenty-­‐two  that  attended,  seventeen  completed  the  survey.       Participants  Attendance  and  Evaluation   Signed  Up   37   Attended     22   Completed  Survey   17     The  spread  of  participants  was  nearly  evenly  distributed  between  graduate  students,  assistant  professors,  associate   professors,  and  professors.  Nine  of  those  who  attended  were  in  the  social  sciences,  two  were  in  the  sciences,  and   three  were  in  the  humanities.     Professional  Breakdown  of  Students   Graduate  Students   4   Assistant  Professors   2   Associate  Professors   3   Professors   4   Outside  CUNY   0     Participants  found  the  workshop  most  useful  for  promoting  research  beyond  the  academy  and  least  useful  for  doing   research.  They  were  most  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to  faculty  and  least  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop   to  administrators.  The  participants  largely  agreed  that  they  learned  a  great  deal  and  had  a  great  instructor.           Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   2.59   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   1.94   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   1.00   Learned    a  Great  Deal   1.12   Great  Instructor   1.24   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   1.12   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   1.65   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   1.35        

70

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Being Interviewed  On  Camera:  Big  Media  for  Academics  (cont’d)   January  15,  2013   Fred  Kaufman  and  Susan  Farkas     Feedback:   u

“Thank you  -­‐  what  you  are  doing  is  useful  and  very  much  needed.”  

u

“It seems  that  the  Big  Media  for  Academics  workshop  could  have  been  two  separate  workshops  -­‐  one  on  the  art   of  pitching  and  the  other  on  interview  skills/techniques.  I  was  especially  interested  in  the  pitching  portion  of  the   workshop.  Overall  though  a  really  wonderful  experience.”  

u

“I thought  that  the  format  of  the  workshop  was  great,  especially  doing  the  interview  and  critiquing  it.  I  didn't   actually  get  filmed,  but  I  think  it's  a  great  exercise  to  watch  yourself  and  learn  tips  to  improve  your  presence  in   the  media.  Overall,  an  excellent  workshop.”  

u

“More follow  up  would  be  a  big  help.  For  this  workshop,  we  learned  about  pitches  for  media  attention,  and  what   makes  a  story  attractive  to  media,  but  didn't  really  get  at  who  to  pitch.  Fred  told  us  that  that  took  him  a  great   deal  of  research,  but  I'm  not  sure  where  to  start.  This  is  the  second  of  these  workshops  I've  taken,  and  I  am  so   impressed  by  the  focus  and  attentiveness  of  all.”  

u

“Thanks for  doing  this!!”  

u

“Overall I  thought  the  content  of  the  workshop  was  quite  good.  Sometimes  Fred  K  seemed  to  be  dominating  the   conversation.  Still  I  learned  a  lot.”  

u

“What I  loved  about  this  session  was  the  way  the  instructors  used  the  participants'  own  materials  as  the  basis  of   the  discussion.  The  sample  interviews  were  entertaining  and  extremely  useful  in  getting  the  messages  across.  A   great  teaching  technique.        Fred  Kaufman  was  a  fountain  of  information  and  a  compelling  instructor.  But  I  would   have  liked  to  hear  more  from  Susan  Farkas.  I'm  sure  she  had  more  to  offer,  and  perhaps  in  the  future  there  can   be  a  better  sharing  of  workshop  time  between  instructors.  I  definitely  liked  having  two  instructors  in  order  to  get   two  perspectives  on  the  topic.”  

u

“We got  very  little  warning  about  creating  the  pitches.  It  also  would  have  helped  to  have  been  given  an  audience   for  the  pitch  or  told  to  specify  an  audience.  Same  for  the  video  practice.  I  would  have  liked  much  more  warning   to  think  about  what  I  wanted  to  say  and  how  I  wanted  to  say  it.  I  found  the  rewriting  exercise  to  be  very  useful.”  

u

“I love  that  you're  doing  this!  Thanks  so  much.”  

u

“Great job  with  selecting  Frank  and  Susan  for  this  MediaCamp!  Would  love  to  have  this  offered  again  to  make   available  to  other  activists  at  CUNY.”    

71

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Being Interviewed  On  Camera:  Big  Media  for  Academics     April  8,  2013     Fred  Kaufman  and  Susan  Farkas     Six  students  signed  up  for  the  second  round  of  Big  Media  for  Academics  and  only  one  student  attended.  That  student   strongly  agreed  that  the  workshop  was  useful  for  doing  research,  useful  for  promoting  research  in  and  outside  of  the   academy,  taught  them  a  great  deal,  had  a  great  instructor,  and  would  have  recommended  the  workshop  to  faculty,   administrators,  and  graduate  students.         Feedback:   u

   

72

“This was  a  fantastic  workshop  opportunity.  It  could  have  stressed  the  all  day  aspect  with  the  pre-­‐workshop  work   of  submitting  an  article  for  doing  the  pre  workshop  interview  on  camera  part.  I  took  a  chance  and  submitted  a   general  piece  on  my  organization  and  did  the  interview  on  camera  in  the  morning  of  the  workshop  day  received   concrete  professional  guidance  that  I  would  not  have  has  access  to  otherwise.  Tremendous  learning  experience   personally  and  one  that  I  can  share/  coach  others  and  apply  to  other  areas,  not  just  a  TV  interview,  such  as  video   interview  for  website,  speaking  to  a  large  group,  speaking  engagements  at  Univ.  or  at  conferences  when   presenting  research.  Excellent  team  of  professors,  invaluable  workshop  content  and  presentation  for  anyone   who  speaks  for  an  organization.”  

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Big Media  for  Academics  &  Being  Interviewed  On  Camera   June  11,  2013     Fred  Kaufman  and  Susan  Farkas     Eighteen  participants  signed  up  for  the  workshop  and  a  little  less  than  half  attended.  Out  of  the  eight  that  attended   six  filled  out  the  survey.       Participants  Attendance  and  Evaluation   Signed  Up   18   Attended        8   Completed  Survey      6     Those  who  completed  the  survey  strongly  agreed  that  they  had  great  instructors  and  agreed  that  they  learned  a   great  deal.  Participants  found  the  workshop  most  useful  for  promoting  research  beyond  the  academy,  but  also   agreed  it  was  useful  for  doing  research  and  promoting  research  within  the  academy.  Participants  were  most  likely  to   recommend  the  workshop  to  faculty  and  least  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to  administrators.       Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   2.30   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   2.30   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   2.00   Learned    a  Great  Deal   1.67   Great  Instructor   1.00   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   1.00   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   2.00   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   1.50     Feedback:     u

“Fred and  Susan  did  a  fantastic  job.  The  facilities  were  generous.  Maybe  some  snacks  to  keep  your  stamina  up   would  be  useful.”  

u

“Maybe be  a  little  more  upfront  to  clarify  what  can  get  accomplished  in  3  hours,  follow  up  emails  were  kind  and   helpful,  On  Camera  training  seemed  to  prime  the  pump  of  openness,  also  built  some  quick  camaraderie  among   group,  good  to  have  two  media  to  discuss  since  lessons  were  quite  different  for  each.  Great  initiative-­‐there  is   such  a  huge  need  for  workshops  like  these.  Feedback  was  direct  and  useful-­‐wish  there  had  been  a  chance  to   revise  and  resubmit  or  hear  a  few  iterations  of  the  pitch.”    

73

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Big Media  for  Academics  &  Being  Interviewed  On  Camera   July  17,  2013   Fred  Kaufman  and  Susan  Farkas     Twenty-­‐nine  participants  signed  up  for  the  workshop  and  eleven  attended.  Out  of  the  eleven  that  attended  eight   filled  out  the  survey.      

Participants Attendance  and  Evaluation   Signed  Up   Attended     Completed  Survey  

29 11   8  

Those who  completed  the  survey  strongly  agreed  that  they  learned  a  great  deal  and  had  great  instructors.   Participants  found  the  workshop  most  useful  for  promoting  research  beyond  the  academy  but  also  agreed  it  was   useful  for  doing  research  and  promoting  research  within  the  academy.  Participants  were  most  likely  to  recommend   the  workshop  to  faculty  and  graduate  students  and  least  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to  administrators.        

Feedback from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   1.58   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   1.61   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   1.33   Learned  a  Great  Deal   1.00   Great  Instructor   1.00   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   1.15   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   1.33   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   1.16    

Participants strongly  agreed  that  their  work  engaged  social  issues  of  social  justice  and  or  inequality.  They  agreed  that   they  wanted  to  get  their  work  out  to  activists  or  traditional  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public.  They  agreed  that   their  work  engaged  traditional  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public  and  agreed  that  their  work  engages  social  media   as  a  means  to  reach  the  public.       Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   My  Work  Engages  Social  Issues/Issues  of  Social  Justice  and/or  Inequality   1.45   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Activists   2.09   My  Work  Engages  Traditional  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   1.54   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Traditional  Media   1.18   My  Work  Engages  Social  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   1.6   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  the  Public   1.08     Feedback:     u

“Fredrick and  Susan  were  awesome  instructors.  I  learned  a  lot.  Their  critiques  of  everyone's  pitches  and  videos   were  extremely  informative  and  helpful!  An  excellent  use  of  my  time.”    

u

“I was  really  impressed”  

74

2013  


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Being Interviewed  on  Camera:  Big  Media  for  Academics   August  9,  2013     Nine  people  attended  the  “Being  Interviewed  on  Camera:  Big  Media  for  Academics”  workshop.  All  of  the  participants   who  attended  completed  the  survey.       Participants  found  the  workshop  most  useful  for  promoting  research  beyond  the  academy  and  less  useful  for  doing   research.  Participants  strongly  agreed  that  they  learned  a  great  deal  and  had  a  great  instructor.  Participants  were   slightly  more  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to  faculty  and  graduate  students  than  to  administrators.       Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   1.9   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   1.6   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   1.2   Learned  a  Great  Deal   1.1   Great  Instructor   1.2   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   1.1   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   1.9   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   1.2       Participants  strongly  agreed  that  their  work  engaged  social  issues  of  social  justice  and  or  inequality.  They  strongly   agreed  that  they  wanted  to  get  their  work  out  to  activists  and  agreed  that  their  work  engages  traditional  media  as  a   means  to  reach  the  public.  They  strongly  agreed  that  they  wanted  to  get  their  work  out  to  traditional  media  and  to   the  public.  They  agreed  that  work  engages  social  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public.       Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   My  Work  Engages  Social  Issues/Issues  of  Social  Justice  and/or  Inequality   1.29   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Activists   1.43   My  Work  Engages  Traditional  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   1.71   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Traditional  Media   1.14   My  Work  Engages  Social  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   1.57   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  the  Public   1.0     Feedback:   u

“It  was  great.”  

u

“This  was  incredibly  educational.  Thank  you  so  much!”  

u

“This  was  great,  and  I  think  a  similar  workshops  for  nonprofits  and  NGOs  would  be  equally  helpful  and  well   received.  In  my  case,  its  equally  difficult  to  pitch  this  type  of  approach  internally”    

75

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Data Visualization:  Making  Sense  of  the  Numbers   June  13,  2013   Amanda  Hickman     Fourteen  people  signed  up  and  three  attended.  Out  of  the  three  that  attended,  all  three  completed  the  survey.       Participants  Attendance  and  Evaluation   Signed  Up   14   Attended        3   Completed  Survey      3     Of  those  that  attended,  two  were  graduate  students  and  one  was  outside  CUNY.       Professional  Breakdown  of  Students   Graduate  Students   2   Assistant  Professors   0   Associate  Professors   0   Professors   0   Outside  CUNY   1     Students  largely  agreed  that  the  workshop  was  useful  for  doing  research  and  promoting  research  within  and  beyond   the  academy.  Participants  agreed  that  they  learned  a  great  deal  and  had  a  great  instructor.  Participants  were  most   likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to  graduate  students  and  least  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to   administrators.       Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   1.50   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   1.50   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   1.50   Learned    a  Great  Deal   2.00   Great  Instructor   2.00   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   2.00   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   2.50   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   1.50     Feedback:   u

76

“Fantastic  knowledge”  

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Data Visualization:  Making  Sense  of  the  Numbers   July  25,  2013   Amanda  Hickman     Thirty-­‐one  participants  signed  up  for  the  workshop  and  eleven  attended.  Out  of  the  eleven  that  attended  eleven   filled  out  the  survey.      

Participants Attendance  and  Evaluation   Signed  Up   Attended     Completed  Survey  

31 11   11  

Those who  completed  the  survey  agreed  that  they  learned  a  great  deal  and  had  a  great  instructor.  Participants  found   the  workshop  most  useful  for  promoting  research  beyond  the  academy  but  also  agreed  it  was  useful  for  doing  and   promoting  research  within  the  academy.  Participants  were  most  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to  faculty  and   least  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to  administrators  and  graduate  students.        

Feedback from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   Learned  a  Great  Deal   Great  Instructor   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students  

2 1.82   1.73   1.6   1.82   1.44   2   2.25  

Participants agreed  that  their  work  engaged  social  issues  of  social  justice  and  or  inequality.  They  agreed  that  they   wanted  to  get  their  work  out  to  activists  or  traditional  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public.  They  agreed  that  their   work  engaged  traditional  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public  and  felt  that  their  work  engages  social  media  as  a   means  to  reach  the  public.      

Feedback from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   My  Work  Engages  Social  Issues/Issues  of  Social  Justice  and/or  Inequality   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Activists   My  Work  Engages  Traditional  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Traditional  Media   My  Work  Engages  Social  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  the  Public  

2.00 2.30   2.67   2.11   2.63   1.89  

Feedback:     u

This has  been  very  useful  -­‐  it's  so  difficult  to  keep  up  or  even  know  about  available  tools  so  learning  about  even   the  tools  Amanda  used  to  conduct  the  session  was  helpful.  Thank  you!  

u

Thanks! Great  free  tutorials.    

77

2013  


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Data Visualization:  Making  Sense  of  the  Numbers   August  9,  2013     Twenty-­‐four  people  attended  the  “Data  Visualization:  Making  Sense  of  the  Numbers”  workshop.  Eighteen   participants  who  attended  completed  the  survey.       Participants  found  the  workshop  most  useful  for  promoting  research  beyond  the  academy  but  also  useful  for  doing   research  and  promoting  research  within  the  academy.  Participants  agreed  that  they  learned  a  great  deal  and  had  a   great  instructor.  Participants  were  slightly  more  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to  faculty  and  graduate  students   than  to  administrators.       Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   1.92   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   1.86   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   1.79   Learned  a  Great  Deal   1.79   Great  Instructor   1.71   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   1.79   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   1.86   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   1.57       Participants  agreed  that  their  work  engaged  social  issues  of  social  justice  and  or  inequality.  They  agreed  that  they   wanted  to  get  their  work  out  to  activists  and  were  neutral  on  whether  their  work  engages  traditional  media  as  a   means  to  reach  the  public.  They  agreed  that  they  wanted  to  get  their  work  out  to  traditional  media  and  to  the  public.       Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   My  Work  Engages  Social  Issues/Issues  of  Social  Justice  and/or  Inequality   2.00   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Activists   2.29   My  Work  Engages  Traditional  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   2.79   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Traditional  Media   2.07   My  Work  Engages  Social  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   2.93   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  the  Public   2.00     Feedback:   u

“Thank  you!”  

u

“Thank you  greatly!”  

u

“Wish I  was  given  prep  work  by  workshop.”  

u

“Would not  recommend  class.  Started  late.  Presentation  did  not  flow  well.  Exercise  were  not  well  planned,   presentation  not  clear,  not  a  good  use  of  time.  Assumed  each  group  had  a  [remainder  unreadable]”  

78

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Smart with  Smart  Phones   March  28,  2013   Scott  Mlyn     Six  participants  signed  up  for  the  first  Smart  Photos  with  Smart  Phones  workshop  and  half  of  those  attended  the   workshop.  Of  those  who  attended  the  workshop,  two  people  completed  the  survey.       Participants  Attendance  and  Evaluation   Signed  Up   6   Attended     3   Completed  Survey   2     Participants  strongly  believed  the  workshop  was  useful  for  promoting  research  within  and  beyond  the  academy  and   agreed  that  the  workshop  was  useful  for  doing  research.  Participants  felt  they  learned  a  great  deal  and  had  a  great   instructor.       Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   2.00   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   1   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   1   Learned    a  Great  Deal   1   Great  Instructor   1   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   1.50   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   1.00   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   1.00     Feedback:   u

79

“The  photo  session  could  have  included  tips/  info,  such  as  conversion  of  picture  to  different  formats  for   particular  purposes/  media  and  what  size  is  good  for  different  media,  especially  mobile.”    

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Smart Photos  with  Smart  Phones   May  30,  2013   Scott  Mlyn     Twenty-­‐three  participants  signed  up  for  the  workshop  and  fourteen  attended.  Out  of  the  fourteen  who  attended,   nine  completed  the  survey.     Participants  Attendance  and  Evaluation   Signed  Up   23   Attended     14   Completed  Survey   9     Participants  agreed  that  the  workshop  was  useful  for  doing  research  and  promoting  research  within  and  beyond  the   academy.  Participants  also  agreed  that  they  learned  a  great  deal  and  had  a  great  instructor.  Participants  were  most   likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to  graduate  students,  but  they  also  agreed  that  they  would  recommend  the   workshop  to  faculty  and  administrators.       Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   2.17   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   2.33   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   2.33   Learned    a  Great  Deal   1.83   Great  Instructor   1.67   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   1.50   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   1.67   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   1.33     Feedback:     u

“Good  idea  for  course  but  class  was  too  much  talk  and  not  enough  application”  

u

“Instructor  was  outstanding  -­‐  high  energy,  comprehensive,  helpful.  I  learned  technically  about  better  using  my   iPhone  and  about  new  apps.”  

u

“I enjoyed  the  class  and  the  practical  hands-­‐on  portion  with  following  in-­‐person  critique  was  more  helpful  than  I   thought  it  would  be.  The  Google  Doc  provided  will  be  a  very  helpful  resource.”  

u

“John  was  a  GREAT  instructor.  At  this  level,  I  wouldn't  say  it's  directly  useful  for  research  but  it  is  very  relevant   for  making  an  impact  when  disseminating  your  research.  I  will  highly  recommend  this  workshop.”    

80

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Smart Photos  with  Smart  Phones   June  13,  2013   Scott  Mlyn     Nineteen  people  signed  up  for  the  workshop  and  three  of  those  who  signed  up  attended.  Two  of  those  who  attended   completed  the  survey.       Participants  Attendance  and  Evaluation   Signed  Up   19   Attended     3   Completed  Survey   2     Participants  found  the  workshop  most  useful  for  doing  research  and  least  useful  for  promoting  research  within  the   academy.  All  participants  agreed  they  had  a  great  instructor  and  learned  a  great  deal.  Participants  were  most  likely  to   recommend  the  workshop  to  graduate  students  and  least  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to  administrators.       Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   1.50   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   2.00   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   1.50   Learned    a  Great  Deal   1.00   Great  Instructor   1.00   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   1.50   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   2.50   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   1.00     Feedback:   u

“Great  workshop  and  instructor”  

u

“Great  instruction  knowledge  and  experience.”    

81

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Smart Photos  with  Smart  Phones   July  24,  2013   Scott  Mlyn     Twenty-­‐seven  participants  signed  up  for  the  workshop  and  eight  attended.  Out  of  the  eight  that  attended  seven  filled   out  the  survey.       Participants  Attendance  and  Evaluation   Signed  Up   27   Attended     8   Completed  Survey   7     Those  who  completed  the  survey  strongly  agreed  that  they  had  a  great  instructor  and  learned  a  great  deal.   Participants  found  the  workshop  most  useful  for  doing  research,  but  also  agreed  it  was  useful  for  promoting  research   within  and  beyond  the  academy.  Participants  were  most  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to  faculty  and  least  likely   to  recommend  the  workshop  to  administrators.         Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   1.57   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   1.88   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   1.75   Learned  a  Great  Deal   1.22   Great  Instructor   1.11   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   1.11   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   1.33   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   1.25       Participants  somewhat  agreed  that  their  work  engaged  social  issues  of  social  justice  and  or  inequality.  They   somewhat  agreed  that  they  wanted  to  get  their  work  out  to  activists  or  traditional  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the   public.  They  somewhat  agreed  that  their  work  engaged  traditional  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public  and  felt  that   their  work  engages  social  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public.       Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   My  Work  Engages  Social  Issues/Issues  of  Social  Justice  and/or  Inequality   2.63   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Activists   2.88   My  Work  Engages  Traditional  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   2.63   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Traditional  Media   2.5   My  Work  Engages  Social  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   2.0   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  the  Public   2.38      

82

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Smart Photos  with  Smartphones   August  8,  2013     Four  people  attended  the  “Smart  Photos  with  Smartphones”  workshop.  All  four  of  the  participants  who  attended   completed  the  survey.       Participants  found  the  workshop  most  useful  for  promoting  research  beyond  the  academy  and  agreed  that  it  was   useful  for  doing  research  and  promoting  research  within  the  academy.  Participants  strongly  agreed  that  they  learned   a  great  deal  and  had  a  great  instructor.  Participants  were  more  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to  graduate   students  than  to  faculty  or  administrators.       Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   2.0   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   1.33   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   1.0   Learned  a  Great  Deal   1.0   Great  Instructor   1.0   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   1.25   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   1.25   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   1.0       Participants  strongly  agreed  that  their  work  engaged  social  issues  of  social  justice  and  or  inequality.  They  strongly   agreed  that  they  wanted  to  get  their  work  out  to  activists  or  traditional  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public.  They   agreed  that  their  work  engaged  traditional  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public  and  felt  that  their  work  engages   social  media  as  a  means  to  reach  the  public.       Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   My  Work  Engages  Social  Issues/Issues  of  Social  Justice  and/or  Inequality   1.33   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Activists   1.0   My  Work  Engages  Traditional  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   2.0   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  Traditional  Media   1.0   My  Work  Engages  Social  Media  as  a  Means  to  Reach  the  Public   2.0   I  Want  to  Get  My  Work  Out  to  the  Public   1.0     Feedback     u

“Great  workshop”  

u

“Only  flaw  was  that  advance  material  did  not  make  it  clear  which  smartphone  would  be  used.  Although  I  would   have  come  anyway,  my  blackberry  was  a  bit  out  of  place.”    

83

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Smart Videos  with  Smartphones   May  29,  2013   John  Smock     The  Smart  Videos  with  Smartphones  was  offered  once.  Less  than  half  of  the  participants  who  signed  up  for  the   workshop  attended  and  of  those  two  completed  the  survey.       Participants  Attendance  and  Evaluation   Signed  Up   17   Attended     6   Completed  Survey   2     The  participants  who  did  attend  the  workshop  said  they  found  the  workshop  most  useful  for  promoting  research   beyond  the  academy  and  least  useful  for  doing  research  or  promoting  research  within  the  academy.  Students  agreed   that  they  learned  a  great  deal  and  had  a  great  instructor.  They  were  most  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to   administrators  and  less  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to  faculty  or  graduate  students.       Feedback  from  Participants     (1  “Strongly  Agree”  –  5  “Strongly  Disagree”)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   2.50   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   2.50   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   1.50   Learned    a  Great  Deal   2.00   Great  Instructor   2.00   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   2.00   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   1.50   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   2.00       Feedback   u

   

84

“The instructor  was  very  passionate  about  the  subject,  but  more  examples  of  how  smartphone  videos  are  used  in   academic  contexts  would  have  been  good.”  

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Social Media  for  Research  Impact   January  22,  2013   Joan  Greenbaum     Twenty-­‐four  people  signed  up  for  the  Social  Media  for  Research  Impact  workshop  and  nine  attended.  All  nine  who   attended  filled  out  the  survey.  Four  of  the  nine  participants  were  graduate  students  and  two  were  professors.  Six   aligned  themselves  with  the  social  sciences  and  one  aligned  with  the  humanities.  Seven  of  the  nine  participants  were   affiliated  with  CUNY  and  two  were  not  affiliated  with  CUNY.       Participants  Attendance  and  Evaluation   Signed  Up   24   Attended     9   Completed  Survey   9     Participants  found  the  workshop  most  useful  for  promoting  research  beyond  the  academy  and  least  useful  for  doing   research.  All  participants  thought  they  had  a  great  instructor  and  most  believed  that  they  learned  a  great  deal.   Participants  were  most  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to  graduate  students  and  least  likely  to  recommend  the   workshop  to  administrators.       Feedback  form  from  participants  (0  –  5)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   1.40   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   1.30   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   1.20   Learned  a  Great  Deal   1.40   Great  Instructor   1.00   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   1.30   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   1.40   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   1.20     Feedback:   u

“The  casual  conversations  were  nice  and  spirited  with  comfortable  atmosphere  and  I  learned  a  good  bit  from  the   comments”  

u

“Thank  you  very  much  for  your  sharing  ideas  and  experience.”  

u

“Thanks  Joan!  Great  Workshop”  

u

“Terrific!  Maybe  make  into  4  hours  -­‐  more  discussion,  examples;  take  some  time  to  get  people  set  up  on  new   site.”  

u

“Very  useful  and  informative.”  

u

“Did  not  receive  email  documents  mentioned  during  the  session:  want  to  make  sure  I  am  hooked  up  for  the   future.”  

u

“Great  workshop!”  

u

“Wonderful  to  think  about  research  impact  and  uses  of  social  media  -­‐  very  thought  provoking.”    

85

2013


Appendix B:  MediaCamp  Evaluation  Data    

Beyond Bullet  Points  for  Academics   January  24,  2013     Laura  Noren     Beyond  Bullet  Points  was  one  of  the  first  workshops  offered  in  the  MediaCamp  series.  Ten  participants  signed  up  and   half  of  those  came  to  the  workshop.  Everyone  who  came  to  the  workshop  completed  the  survey.       Participants  Attendance  and  Evaluation   Signed  Up   10   Attended     5   Completed  Survey   5     All  of  the  students  that  attended  the  workshop  were  graduate  students.  All  of  those  graduate  students  were  CUNY   affiliated  and  four  of  the  five  were  in  the  social  sciences.       Professional  Breakdown  of  Students   Graduate  Students   5   Assistant  Professors   0   Associate  Professors   0   Professors   0   Outside  CUNY   0     Participants  thought  the  workshop  was  most  useful  for  promoting  research  in  and  outside  of  the  academy.  They   thought  it  was  less  useful  for  doing  research.  Participants  were  most  likely  to  recommend  this  workshop  to  graduate   students  and  least  likely  to  recommend  the  workshop  to  administrators.  Overall  participants  agreed  that  they   learned  a  great  deal  and  most  thought  they  had  a  great  instructor.         Feedback  form  from  participants  (0  –  5)   Useful  for  Doing  Research   2.40   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within  the  Academy   1.40   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  beyond  the  Academy   1.40   Learned    a  Great  Deal   1.80   Great  Instructor   1.20   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Faculty   1.60   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Administrators   2.00   Would  Recommend  Workshop  to  Graduate  Students   1.40     Feedback:     u

“Thanks for  a  great  workshop!”  

u

“Wonderful!”

86

2013


Appendix C:  MediaCamp  Participation  Scale  &  Survey  

Participants Feedback  Rating  Scale   1  –  Strongly  Agree   2  –  Agree   3  –  Neutral   4  –  Disagree   5  –  Strongly  Disagree   MediaCamp  Survey   Thank  you  for  attending  this  JustPublics@365  workshop.  Please  help  us  to  grow  by  filling  out  this  survey.   “workshop  name”  –  date,  time   Name:  ____________________________________________________   Field  and  Title:  _____________________________________________   Affiliation  (University,  Institution,  etc.):__________________________   Year  PhD  Granted/Expected  (if  not,  note  N/A):  ____________________  

  Useful  for  Doing  Research   Useful  for  Promoting  Research  within   the  Academy   Useful  for  Promoting  Research   outside  the  Academy   I  learned  a  great  deal   Great  Instructor   I  would  recommend  this  workshop  to   faculty   I  would  recommend  this  workshop  to   Administrators.   I  would  recommend  this  workshop  to   graduate  students.  

Strongly Agree   (1)      

Agree (2)      

Neutral (3)      

Disagree (4)      

Strongly Disagree   (5)      

   

   

   

   

   

What are  some  other  workshops  you  would  like  to  see  offered?   What  are  convenient  times  for  workshops?   Other  Comments,  Questions,  Ideas  

87

2013


Appendix D:  Paper  Submitted  to  the  Journal  of   Interactive  Technology  and  Pedagogy  (JITP)    

“The Inq13  POOC:  A  Participatory  Experiment  in  Open,     Collaborative  Teaching,  and  Learning”  

88

2013


The Inq13  POOC:  A  Participatory  Experiment  in     Open,  Collaborative  Teaching,  and  Learning    

Jessie Daniels  and  Matthew  K.  Gold,  with  members  of  the  Inq13  Collective:     Stephanie  M.  Anderson,  John  Boy,  Caitlin  Cahill,  Jen  Jack  Gieseking,  Karen  Gregory,     Kristen  Hackett,  Heidi  Knoblauch,  Fiona  Lee,  Wendy  Luttrell,  Amanda  Matles,  Edwin  Mayorga,     Wilneida  Negrón,  Emily  Sherwood,  Shawn(ta)  Smith,  Polly  Thistlethwaite,  Zora  Tucker    

In  the  spring  semester  of  2013,  a  collective  of  approximately  twenty  members  of  the  Graduate  Center   of  the  City  University  of  New  York  created  a  participatory,  open,  online  course,  or  “POOC,”  titled   “Reassessing  Inequality  and  Re-­‐Imagining  the  21st-­‐Century:  East  Harlem  Focus.”  The  course  was   offered  for  credit  as  a  graduate  seminar  through  the  Graduate  Center  and  was  open  to  anyone  who   wanted  to  take  it  through  the  online  platform  Commons  In  A  Box.  Appearing  at  a  moment  when   hundreds  of  thousands  of  students  were  enrolling  for  the  Massively  Open  Online  Courses  (or  MOOCs)   offered  through  platforms  such  as  Coursera,  Udacity,  and  EdX,  Inq13  was  notable  as  an  attempt  to   share  openly  the  normally  cloistered  experience  of  a  graduate  seminar  (typically  comprised  of  10–12   students  and  an  instructor)  with  a  wider,  public  audience.  Exploring  various  aspects  of  inequality  in   housing  and  education,  the  course  emphasized  community-­‐based  research  in  a  dynamic  New  York   neighborhood  through  a  range  of  “knowledge  streams”  and  interactive  modalities.     The  course  grew  out  of  a  discussion  among  faculty  at  the  Graduate  Center  about  how  to  bring  together   research  about  inequality  across  disciplinary  boundaries  and  to  extend  those  conversations  beyond  the   walls  of  the  our  institution  in  ways  that  mattered  within  communities.1  There  was  wide  agreement  that   any  effort  should  reflect  the  Graduate  Center’s  public  educational  mission  and  also  that  the  course   launched  from  the  intersection  of  34th  Street  and  Fifth  Avenue  in  New  York  City,  should  incorporate   and  interrogate  its  vibrant  urban  surroundings.  Offered  during  the  closing  year  of  Mayor  Michael   Bloomberg’s  final  term,  marked  by  rising  levels  of  economic  inequality,  the  course  would  focus  on   issues  of  structural  inequality  across  a  variety  of  academic  disciplines,  including  anthropology,  urban   education,  psychology,  geography,  political  science,  and  digital  sociology.  In  order  to  provide  a  focus   for  the  breadth  of  disciplinary  approaches  and  to  ground  the  theoretical  discussions  in  a  specific   geography,  members  of  the  collective  chose  to  engage  East  Harlem,  a  neighborhood  that  has   simultaneously  borne  the  brunt  of  urban  inequality  and  fostered  a  vibrant,  multi-­‐ethnic  tradition  of   citizen  activism.  To  facilitate  this  engagement  with  East  Harlem,  multiple  class  sessions  were  hosted  as   open  community  events  in  the  neighborhood  and  livestreamed  over  the  course  website  for  those   unable  to  attend.     Developing,  designing,  launching  and  running  the  POOC  was  an  enormous  logistical  undertaking  on   every  level.  Befitting  a  course  that  brought  together  a  diverse  range  of  perspectives  through  a  number   of  modalities  in  multiple  locations,  this  article  presents  a  collaborative  and  multivocal  reflection  on  the   course  by  some  of  its  participants,  including  faculty  members,  students,  librarians,  web  developers,   educational  technologists,  videographers,  and  community  members.  Contextualized  by  an  interactive   timeline  and  a  podcast  related  to  our  course,  we  provide  a  theoretical  framework  for  a  “participatory”                                                                                                               1  This  conversation  was  made  possibly  by  the  Advanced  Research  Collaborative  (ARC),  under  the   thoughtful  leadership  of  Don  Robotham  (Anthropology).   89  

2013


open course,  and  share  thoughts  about  the  challenges  inherent  in  translating  the  typically  private   world  of  the  graduate  seminar  into  a  shared,  public  online  experience.  The  course  was  produced  by  the   labor  of  many  hands;  in  the  sections  that  follow,  we  present  a  range  of  perspectives  on  our  Inq13   POOC,  which  we  hope  will  be  useful  to  others  considering  similar  pedagogical  experiments.     A  Brief  History  and  Theory  of  the  POOC       There  has  been  no  shortage  of  hyperbole  about  MOOCs—Massively  Open  Online  Courses.  In  perhaps   the  most  egregious  example  of  this  hype,  New  York  Times  columnist  Thomas  Friedman  extoled  the   revolutionary  possibilities  of  MOOCs,  saying  “Nothing  has  more  potential  to  enable  us  to  reimagine   higher  education  than  the  massive  open  online  course,  or  MOOC”  (Friedman  2013).  Such  claims  are   similar  to  those  made  about  educational  television  in  the  middle  of  the  twentieth  century.  Canadian   educational  technologist  Dave  Cormier  who,  along  with  George  Siemens  and  Steve  Downes,  developed   the  first  MOOC  in  2006  also  coined  the  term  “MOOC.”  In  the  fall  of  2011,  Stanford  University  opened   some  of  its  computer  science  courses  to  the  world  through  an  online  platform  and  found  hundreds  of   thousands  of  students  enrolling.  As  a  result,  MOOCs  moved  from  niche  discussions  among  educational   technologists  to  The  New  York  Times.       Premised  on  extending  the  experience  of  traditional  university  courses  to  massive  audiences,  MOOCs   have  provoked  an  array  of  responses.  Commentators  who  believe  that  higher  education  is  in  need  of   reform  argue  that  hidebound  educational  practices  have  finally  been  shaken  by  a  productively   disruptive  force.  MOOCs,  according  to  such  arguments,  have  made  the  educational  experiences   offered  at  elite  institutions  available  to  students  across  the  world,  for  free,  thus  making  higher   education  possible  for  students  who  would  not  otherwise  be  able  to  afford  it.  Critics  of  MOOCs  often   view  them  in  the  context  of  a  higher  education  system  that  is  being  defunded,  and  worry  that  higher   education  administrators  see,  in  MOOCs,  possibilities  for  revenue  generation  through  increased   enrollments  and  cost-­‐cutting  through  reduced  full-­‐time  faculty  hires.       MOOCs  have  been  critiqued,  too,  for  their  paltry  imagining  of  the  educational  experience.  To  date,   most  MOOCs  have  consisted  of  video  lectures,  sometimes  accompanied  by  discussion  forums  or   automated  tests.  Students  are  expected  to  absorb  videos  in  ways  that  seem  consonant  with  what   Paulo  Freire  described  as  the  banking  concept  of  education,  in  which  students  are  imagined  as  empty   vessels  into  which  the  instructor  deposits  knowledge  (Freire  1993).  There  is  little  capacity  within  the   mostly  one-­‐way  communication  structure  of  MOOCs  for  interaction  between  faculty  members  and   students.  While  some  MOOCs  try  to  foster  interaction  between  the  professor  and  his  (or  her)2  students,   this  has  not  met  with  much  success  (Bruffet.  al  2013,  187).  There  is  little  in  the  MOOC  model  to   recommend  it  as  a  vehicle  for  a  graduate  seminar,  in  which  intimate  and  closed  discussion,  rather  than   massiveness  and  openness,  are  most  prized.       The  “POOC”—a  participatory,  open  online  course—is  a  neologism  created  by  Jessie  Daniels  and  Jack   Gieseking  to  characterize  an  educational  experience  premised  not  on  massive  scale,  but  rather  on   meaningful  participation.  This  comes  in  part  from  the  model  of  the  graduate  seminar;  unlike  the  large   introductory  lecture  courses  that  standard  MOOC  classes  are  based  on,  the  seminar  around  which  the                                                                                                               2

Most  high-­‐profile  MOOCs  have  featured  men  as  instructors;  the  POOC  was  co-­‐led  by  two  women.  For  more  on  the  gender   imbalance  in  MOOCs,  see  Straumheim  2013.   90  

2013


POOC was  conceived  usually  involves  12–15  advanced  graduate  students  sitting  around  a  conference   table,  discussing  readings  in  depth  with  their  faculty  members.  It  is  a  pedagogical  situation  premised   on  conversation  and  exchange,  one  that  is  entirely  inappropriate  to  the  megaphone  model  of  MOOCs.     “Participatory,”  however,  does  not  only  mean  engaging  in  a  conversation;  borrowing  from  activist   pedagogies,  it  involves  direct  engagement  with  specific  readings,  people,  neighborhoods,  and  networks.   Among  the  questions  the  Inq13  POOC  intended  to  explore  were:  What  does  inequality  look  like  in   2013?  How  might  we  imagine  our  future  differently  if  we  did  so  collectively?  And,  given  that  we  are   situated  at  this  particular  historical  moment  in  which  technology  is  changing  so  many  aspects  of  the   social  world,  how  do  the  affordances  of  digital  technologies  augment  the  way  we  both  research   inequality  and  resist  its  corrosive  effects?     Our  lead  faculty  members,  Wendy  Luttrell  and  Caitlin  Cahill,  were  charged  with  teaching  the  class  in-­‐ person  to  students  at  the  Graduate  Center  and  also  working  with  the  Inq13  collective  to  create  an   online  course  experience  for  students  not  registered  at  the  GC—not  an  easy  task.  Their  voices,  and  the   voices  of  other  participants  in  this  experiment  in  pedagogy,  follow.     Faculty  Perspectives  on  the  POOC   Professors  Caitlin  Cahill  and  Wendy  Luttrell  reflect  on  their  teaching  experiences   Public  matters,  personal  troubles,  and  community-­‐based  inquiry    

With a  leap  and  a  bound,  together  we  held  hands  and  dove  head  first  into  Inq13  and  building  an  on-­‐ line  community  of  learners.  As  instructors,  we  shared  two  goals:  first,  to  frame  the  course  as  an  inquiry   into  the  links  between  public  matters  and  private  troubles  (Mills  1959),  or  put  differently,  how   structural  inequalities  and  public  policies  imbue  our  everyday  lives.  Our  second  goal  was  to  marry   community-­‐based  inquiry  with  digital  technologies,  in  part  to  counter  the  no-­‐placeness  and  too   smooth,  ubiquitous,  sanitized  space  of  online  courses.  We  created  a  series  of  scaffolded  assignments   for  students  to  address  how  global  restructuring  takes  shape  in  the  everyday  life  struggles  of  a  real   place,  in  this  case  East  Harlem.  For  us,  the  course  was  less  about  East  Harlem,  and  more  about  how  to   engage  in  community-­‐based  research  and  use  digital  technologies  to  leverage  change  with  East  Harlem   community  partners.  Because  members  of  the  course  team  were  already  involved  in  struggles  related   to  housing  and  education,  these  two  issues  were  featured  throughout  the  course.       Please  turn  off  your  cell  phone    

For their  first  assignment,  we  asked  students  to  go  to  East  Harlem  without  using  any  digital   technologies.    This  felt  like  a  bold  move  at  a  time  when  so  much  of  our  everyday  experience  is   mediated  by  screens  and  electronic  devices.  We  asked  students  to  simply  “be”  in  East  Harlem,  to  draw   upon  their  senses  of  smell,  sight,  sounds,  touch,  taste,  and  texture;  to  pay  attention  to  and  experience   their  surroundings  (Rheingold,  2012).  This  exercise  was  another  counter  point  and  critical  intervention   in  preparing  students  to  enter  and  engage  East  Harlem  as  a  site  of  learning.  As  part  of  this  assignment,   we  asked  students  to  also  reflect  upon  their  relationship  to  East  Harlem  and  their  positionality.  For   their  final  projects  students  would  experiment  with  at  least  three  of  twelve  digital  tools  in  order  to   create  “knowledge  streams,”  or  more  open  forms  of  knowledge.  The  digital  tools  included  mapping,   remix,  and  digital  storytelling  to  investigate  and  represent  their  community-­‐based  projects.  But  first,   we  needed  to  raise  critical  questions  about  the  voyeuristic  gaze  of  researchers  engaging  in  working   class  communities  of  color.  Through  discussions,  both  in  person  and  online,  of  personal  experience,   91  

2013


readings, and  the  film,  Stranger  with  a  Camera  (2000),  we  began  the  course  around  questions  of  ethics,   the  politics  of  representation,  and  the  meaning  of  community  engagement.  This  set  the  tone  for  the   course.     On  stage  –  off  stage    

Each week,  our  class  met  for  two  hours;  during  the  first  hour,  we  livestreamed  video  of  a  lecture  or   discussion  as  part  of  the  public-­‐facing  course;  during  the  second  hour,  we  met  with  our  Graduate   Center  students  privately  in  our  seminar.  This  was  a  key  pedagogical  move:  we  learned  that  the   performativity  of  the  POOC  was  intimidating  for  many  involved,  and  so  we  were  committed  to   maintaining  dedicated  face-­‐to-­‐face  time  each  week  with  the  Graduate  Center  students  enrolled  in  our   course.  While  some  students  felt  very  at  ease  in  the  online  environment  whether  on  camera,  on  the   blog,  or  tweeting,  for  others  the  onstage  presence  was  uncomfortable,  even  paralyzing.  With  hindsight,   we  wonder  if  this  discomfort  was  even  more  pronounced  after  the  sense  of  place  exercise  in  East   Harlem  described  above  because  it  surfaced  messy  questions  about  insiders,  outsiders,  border-­‐crossers,   structural  racism,  anxiety,  and  attending  to  the  necessary  “speed  bumps”  of  doing  research  where  one   must  slow  down  and  reflect  before  moving  forward.  This  reflection  was  on-­‐going  and  needed  to  be   nurtured  through  multiple  formats—weekly  blog  posts;  during  class  discussions  on  and  off  stage;  with   students  in  person,  one  on  one;  between  students  and  community  partners;  and  through  a  private   online  space  where  students  could  exchange  views  they  didn’t  want  to  broadcast  to  a  broader  public.     Plurality  of  publics  

Our experience  builds  out  the  pedagogical  and  ontological  significance  of  acknowledging  the  plurality   of  publics.  As  Nancy  Fraser  (1996,  27)  has  suggested,  the  constitution  of  alternative  public  spaces,  or   counterpublics,  function  to  expand  the  discursive  space  and  realize  “participatory  parity,”  in  contrast   to  a  single  comprehensive  public  sphere.  This  was  the  promise  of  the  POOC  as  we  strove  to  create  and   hold  different  publics  together.  We  believed  in  the  productive  tensions  between  digital  technology,   community-­‐based  spaces  and  research,  and  the  reflective  pedagogical  spaces  of  the  course.  Not  only   did  the  course  reflect  these  structurally  (in  terms  of  the  format  and  ways  one  could  participate)  but  the   community-­‐based  projects  developed  by  the  students  also  placed  emphasis  upon  documenting  the   critical  counterpublics  of  East  Harlem  and  their  emancipatory  potential  in  addressing  structural   injustices,  using  technology  in  exciting  and  interesting  ways.  This  was  reflected  in  the  variety  of  final   projects,  which  focused  on  documenting  contemporary  and  historical  community  spaces  such  as   Mexican  restaurants,  Afro-­‐Latina  hair  salons,  alternative  educational  spaces,  youth-­‐led  collective  social   justice  movements  (the  Young  Lords/  the  Black  Panthers),  and  the  memories  embedded  in  everyday   spaces  in  El  Barrio.     One  of  the  most  exciting  ideas  was  how  the  POOC  might  serve  as  a  resource  at  two  levels:  at  the  local   level,  connecting  with  members  of  different  East  Harlem  community  efforts;  and  at  a  global  level,   connecting  with  historic  Latino  neighborhoods  (Barrios)  across  the  US  and  around  the  world.  For   example,  how  might  the  POOC  serve  as  a  resource  for  undocumented  students  in  Georgia  or  Arizona   where  access  to  education  has  been  denied?  Or  trace  networks  of  Puerto  Rican  migration  across  the   United  States?  These  remain  potentialities  for  future  iterations  of  the  course;  in  this  first  instance  of   the  course,  the  most  developed  form  of  participation  came  out  of  the  community-­‐based  partnerships   students  formed  through  face-­‐to-­‐face  relationships  where  the  thorny  questions  of  outcomes,   sustainability,  and  representation  were  negotiated  over  time  and  in  relationship.         92  

2013


On the  edge  of  knowing  

When we  started  the  class,  diving  into  the  unknown  we  didn’t  know  what  to  expect.  We  were  wary  of   the  online  neo-­‐liberalization  of  higher  education,  especially  at  this  particular  political  moment.  Still,  we   were  seduced  and  excited  by  the  radical  possibilities  of  participatory  digital  technologies  to  create   bridges  that  connect  the  plurality  of  publics  (as  evidenced  in  some  of  the  amazing  student  projects).   Critical  questions  of  appropriation,  labor,  access,  pedagogy,  and  privatization  loom  large  in  our  minds.   But  what  stays  with  us  is  best  conveyed  by  the  wise  words  excerpted  from  (student)  Sonia  Sanchez’s   blog  post  about  the  world  we  inherit  but  want  to  reimagine:    

a world  where  everything  can  be  turned  around  and  stamped  with  a  barcode    

our own  culture,  our  own  language,  our  own  SUBVERSION    

put in  a  box,  wrapped  in  fancy  paper  and  sold  right  back  to  us.    

I don’t  even  know  what’s  worse:    

That you  sell  my  dreams.  Or  that  you  try  to  convince  me  I  need  to  buy  my  way  to  them.    

privatize education    

privatize housing    

privatize space    

privatize time    

privatize care    

privatize lives,  so  that  this  all  feels  NATURAL    

for sale    

and it  goes  to  the  highest  bidder!    

weapons of  mass  distraction…    

on the  astroturf  geography    

anti-­‐space-­‐sharing  

private space  BUT    

ALSO (de)public  space    

with a  million  little  vacuums  with  bright  screens.    

they vacuum  out  souls  from  a  room  where  two  people  are  unaware  they  are  standing  next  to   each  other  

We  conclude  with  this  as  a  wish  and  song  to  connect  screens  and  souls  in  the  service  of  social,   economic,  and  educational  equity  and  justice.       93  

2013


Student Perspectives  on  the  POOC   Students  Kristen  Hackett  and  Zora  Tucker  Discuss  their  Experiences  in  the  Course   Kristen  Hackett  

I approached  the  Inq13  class  as  a  graduate  student  in  the  middle  of  my  second  year.  After  three   semesters  of  theory  and  research  methods,  I  was  finally  finding  some  stable  footing  and  was  at  a  point   where  I  could  now  look  up,  and  forward,  and  be  able  to  think  about  how  my  future  as  an  academic   activist  scholar  might  begin  to  take  shape  more  concretely.  Infiltrating  the  halls  of  the  Graduate  Center,   then  and  now,  are  whispered  concerns  about  the  future  job  market  for  Ph.D.’s,  especially  in  the  realm   of  academia.  Tell-­‐tale  signs  include  the  negative  assessments  and  reactions  to  the  emerging  business   model  for  colleges  and  universities—the  adjunct  tactic;  as  well  as  the  evident  struggle  being  faced  by   soon-­‐to-­‐be  and  recent  graduates  as  they  waded  through  job  application  process  with  its  ever-­‐ multiplying  components,  expectations,  and  interview  rounds.  Though  initially  driven  to  the  class  by  the   content,  as  inequality  is  an  interest  of  mine,  I  found  the  technology  component  to  be  a  significant  and   helpful  part  of  the  class.     Technology  in  the  class  took  on  a  lot  of  roles:  we  used  it  to  communicate  with  each  other  in  the  GC   class,  with  our  professors  and  the  extensive  support  staff  we  had,  to  communicate  with  other   classmates  who  were  not  part  of  the  GC  group,  and  other  community  partners  and  organizations  in   East  Harlem  cruising  the  website  or  Twitter  hashtag  (#InQ13)  as  well  as  a  way  to  spread  awareness   about  our  cause  and  our  research.  Prior  to  taking  the  class,  I  had  a  Facebook  account  as  my  only   scholar-­‐activist  digital  sharing  platform;  within  the  first  couple  of  weeks,  I  had  created  accounts  on   Twitter  and  Skype,  had  begun  building  a  personal  website,  and  was  contributing  weekly  to  the  class   blog.  Additionally,  within  the  first  two  months  I  had  played  with  many  of  the  digital  tools  suggested  to   see  how  they  might  be  helpful  in  the  community-­‐based  research  project  that  was  a  main  component  to   the  course.       While  being  inundated  with  all  of  these  new  tools  was  overwhelming,  the  support  provided  by  the   class’s  digital  technology  support  staff  and  the  encouragement  provided  by  our  two  faculty  members— not  to  mention  the  other  members  of  the  course—made  exploring  these  new  digital  terrains  much   more  manageable  and  less  fear-­‐inducing.  Furthermore,  our  exploration  of  these  new  digital  tools  was   enhanced  by  two  simultaneous  components  of  the  class.  First,  during  our  first  week  we  read  articles  by   other  scholars  recounting  their  accounts  and  assessments  of  similar  digital  platforms  as  well  as  read   scholarly  reflections  on  technology  in  relation  to  both  the  academy  and  activist-­‐scholarship.  Second,   after  the  first  week  or  two,  we  were  constantly  pushed  to  consider  (and  eventually  use)  these  new   digital  tools  to  create  knowledge  streams  in  relation  to  a  community-­‐based  research  project.       Now  I  must  admit,  my  use  of  these  different  digital  platforms  has  dropped  off  since  shortly  after  the   closing  of  the  course,  but  only  for  now,  as  my  attention  has  been  otherwise  consumed.  My  awareness   and  knowledge  of  these  digital  tools,  which  was  greatly  increased  due  to  my  participation  in  the  course,   persists,  the  intimidation  factor  has  greatly  lessened,  and  I  look  forward  to  exploring  these  more  in  the   near  future.     Zora  Tucker  

This course  was  valuable  to  me  in  several  distinct  but  interdependent  capacities:  I  am  a  graduate   student  at  another  institution,  a  public  school  teacher,  and  a  self-­‐identified  movement  activist.  I  am   94  

2013


none of  these  things  in  isolation  from  each  other,  but  I  find  it  useful  to  reflect  on  the  experience  of   participating  in  this  course  from  these  three  lenses.       As  a  graduate  student  in  a  program  in  Arizona  designed  for  people  who  live  and  work  elsewhere,  it  was   a  windfall  to  find  this  course  to  use  for  my  self-­‐designed  program  in  Critical  Geography  at  Prescott   College.  It  is  rare  that  I  am  able  to  find  collegial  relationships  in  this  rather  isolated  process,  and  the   multiple  modalities  available  to  me—webcasts,  twitter,  and  the  capacity  to  come  into  the  CUNY   Graduate  Center  for  the  open  sessions—were  all  excellent  for  the  development  of  my  independent   scholarship.  I  was  able  to  see  and  converse  with  scholars-­‐activists  I  had  known  only  through  writing,   such  as  Michelle  Fine  and  Maria  Torres.  As  a  person  who  had  a  limited  schedule,  this  format  allowed   me  to  engage  with  varying  intensities  at  different  times  in  my  schedule.     When  I  took  this  course  I  was  looking  for  teaching  work  as  a  new  arrival  to  NYC  while  simultaneously   doing  research  on  charter  schools  and  public  space  for  my  graduate  work.  This  course  gave  me  the   ability  to  get  a  sense  of  the  landscape  of  public  schooling  in  relation  to  space  in  East  Harlem,  and  to   think  through  my  emergent  understanding  of  the  state  of  public  schooling  in  this  city.  My  learning  in   these  two  capacities  came  primarily  from  paying  attention  to  people  on  Twitter,  and  following  them  if   our  interests  converged,  and  engaging  with  the  work  of  other  students  posted  on  the  class  website.   This  happened  fluidly,  through  a  process  that  allowed  my  research  on  both  the  public  schooling   environment  in  which  I  found  myself  looking  for  work  and  my  academic  interests  began  to  converge   and  weave  together  in  a  positive  feedback  loop  that  sustained  my  understanding  of  my  new  home,  my   academic  critiques,  and  my  ambition  to  work  as  a  teacher  in  New  York  City.     As  a  scholar  who  approaches  academia  from  a  movement  orientation,  and  an  activist  who  recently   taught  undergraduates  with  the  explicit  purpose  of  making  activism  and  analysis  something  we  did  by   participating  in  doing  the  work  of  social  change,  I  find  tremendous  overlap  between  my  movement   work  and  my  academic  interests.  This  course  was  well-­‐aligned  with  my  movement  philosophy  of  using   academic  space  as  a  forum  for  broadcasting  voices  that  are  not  always  amplified  in  the  halls  of  power.   No  one  lives  in  the  abstraction  of  neoliberalism;  we  all  find  our  ways  through  the  minutiae  of  its  day-­‐ to-­‐day  realities.  This  course  made  space  for  this  truth  in  multiple  ways,  but  I  will  write  here  about  two.   First,  the  community  forums  created  in  Inq13  paired  academic  writing,  which  so  often  veers  into  the   abstract  and  untenable,  with  the  concrete  analysis  of  those  who  do  the  work  of  living  in  and  through   sites  of  academic  analysis.  Secondly,  the  website  itself  was  visible  to  people  outside  of  the  class,  so  I   could  share  my  posts  and  posts  of  other  scholars—and  even  the  structure  of  the  website  itself—with   my  former  students,  my  colleagues,  and  anyone  who  might  be  interested  and  fruitfully  informed  by   either  the  format  or  the  content  (or  both)  of  this  course.  I  had  two  colleagues  at  the  college  where  I   used  to  teach  using  my  blog  posts  in  their  work  with  undergraduates.     In  conclusion,  my  experience  of  this  POOC—as  a  person  who  came  to  this  course  through  a  friend  who   recommended  it  through  Facebook  participated  in  it  primarily  through  the  website  and  twitter,  and   shared  it  through  social  media—was  holistically  educational  and  useful  beyond  the  expectations  that  I   initially  had  of  the  experience.      

95

2013


Community Perspectives  on  the  POOC   Community  Engagement  Fellow  Edwin  Mayorga  reflects  on  course  interactions  with  East  Harlem   residents  and  institutions     Our  approach  to  community  engagement  drew  on  traditions  of  community-­‐based  research,  where   respectful  collaboration  with  community  is  central  to  documenting  the  local  and  global  dimensions  of   structural  inequality.  The  commitment  to  centering  community  was  intended  to  move  us  away  from   reproducing  the  often  exploitative  relationships  between  outside  institutions  and  communities,  setting   up  a  number  of  challenges  that  we  are  still  learning  from.  This  sort  of  approach  to  community   engagement  is  a  time-­‐intensive  one,  and  one  that  was  often  at  odds  with  the  limited  time  frame  for   the  launch  of  the  POOC.  Due  to  the  experimental  nature  of  the  grant  that  funded  this  work,  the  POOC   was  conceived  over  the  summer  of  2012,  launched  in  spring  of  2013,  but  not  fully  staffed  until  late   December  –  early  January,  2013.  Thus,  building  trusting  relationships  with  community  groups,   effectively  integrating  community  groups  into  course  sessions,  and  connecting  them  with  course   students  was  a  challenge  that  we  did  not  always  meet.       The  strategy  we  used  to  engage  community  groups  was  to  reach  out  to  various  organizations  and  host   a  community  meeting.  The  initial  community  meeting,  held  at  a  restaurant  in  East  Harlem,  was  small   but  productive.  Following  that,  we  worked  to  establish  a  relationship  with  the  Center  for  Puerto  Rican   Studies  (Centro).  Centro’s  place  as  a  product  of  struggle,  its  long  standing  relationships  to  East  Harlem,   and  its  definitive  archive  of  the  Puerto  Rican  diaspora  made  it  an  ideal  starting  point  for  the  course.       By  the  end  of  the  course,  we  had  much  to  be  proud  of  with  respect  to  our  community  engagement   work.  We  were  also  able  to  facilitate  community-­‐centered  sessions  at  locations  in  East  Harlem  where   researchers  and  activists  who  either  live  or  work  in  East  Harlem  could  speak  to  key  issues  affecting  the   community,  such  as  education,  housing,  and  gentrification.  We  were  excited  to  see  students  who   worked  with  various  community-­‐based  organizations  produce  hundreds  of  knowledge  streams  in  the   forms  of  bibliographies,  blogs,  infographics,  slides,  visuals,  and  videos  on  issues  of  inequality  both   theoretical  and  specific  to  East  Harlem,  and  open  to  any  one  to  read,  explore,  and  engage.     Still,  there  were  a  number  of  humbling  setbacks.  Most  poignant  were  the  critiques  by  community-­‐ connected  scholars  and  participants  about  what  they  saw  as  reductive  depictions  of  the  community   and  the  exploitative  “parachuting  in”  of  community-­‐speakers.  We  worked  to  address  some  of  these   important  critiques  by  holding  another  community  meeting,  and  reducing  the  number  of  organizations   we  worked  with  in  order  to  ensure  we  maintained  and  nourished  relationships  with  our  project   partners.  To  be  sure,  there  was  a  need  for  more  community-­‐building  work  in  the  run-­‐up  to  the  course.       Upon  reflection,  our  attempt  to  be  both  digitally  and  critically  bifocal  (paying  attention  to  the  local  and   the  global)  (Weis  and  Fine  2012)  was  ambitious  and  inadequately  presented  to  community  people.   Creating  a  clear  focus  in  partnership  with  communities  is  essential  to  future  community-­‐oriented   POOCs.  Most  importantly,  time  (at  least  a  year)  and  financial  resources  must  be  allotted  to  allow  for   the  creation  of  well-­‐considered  opportunities  to  share  and  build  across  institutions,  networks,  and   people.       The  sustained  work  of  community  building  can  seem  daunting,  but  it  is  central  to  providing  a  successful   foundation  for  participatory  social-­‐justice  education.     96  

2013


Open Access  and  the  POOC   Librarians  Polly  Thistlethwaite  and  Shawn(ta)  Smith  discuss  the  challenges  of  creating  open-­‐access   course  materials  for  the  POOC     Libraries  have  traditionally  supported  faculty  with  course  reserve  services,  copyright  advice,  and   scanning  service  to  shepherd  extension  of  licensed  library  content  for  exclusive  use  by  a  well-­‐defined   set  of  university-­‐affiliated  students.  However,  under  current  licensing  models,  this  content  can  rarely   be  extended  to  the  massive,  unaffiliated,  undefined,  and  unregistered  body  of  MOOC  enrollees   without  tempting  lawsuits  filed  by  publishers  with  deep-­‐pockets.  Course  content,  usually  in  the  form  of   books,  book  chapters,  articles,  and  films,  are  not  licensed  to  universities  for  open,  online  distribution.       Additionally,  use  of  licensed  content  of  any  kind  is  arguably  incongruent  with  a  MOOC’s  aim  and   purpose.  Licensed  content  requires  some  form  of  reader  authentication  to  regulate  access.  In  contrast,   open-­‐access  scholarship  requires  no  registration  or  license.  It  is  available  to  any  reader,  including   students  affiliated  with  a  university  and  non-­‐university  students  living  and  working  in  East  Harlem.   Linking  interested  students  to  the  open  reports,  films,  books,  and  articles  reflecting  work  focused  on   inequality  and  East  Harlem,  the  POOC’s  open  access  course  materials  raise  the  profile  and  increase  the   impact  of  the  academic,  activist,  and  artist  authors.       Authors  featured  in  or  engaged  with  the  Inq13  POOC  were  generally  eager  to  make  their  work  open   access.  The  Directory  of  Open  Access  Journals  verified  that  several  significant  course  readings  were   already  “gold”  open  access,  providing  the  widest  possible  audiences,  and  ready  to  be  assigned  for  any   course  reading.  The  Centro  Journal  of  the  CUNY  Center  for  Puerto  Rican  Studies,  for  example,  is   completely  open  access.  Many  of  this  journal’s  authors  were  assigned  by  the  POOC  over  several  course   modules.     “Green”  journals’  standing  self-­‐archiving  policies  are  covered  by  the  SHERPA/RoMEO  tool,  outlining   policies  allowing  authors  to  post  published  work  on  author  websites  or  institutional  repositories.  While   author  self-­‐archiving  is  widely  permitted  by  traditional  academic  journal  publishers,  the  opportunity  to   self-­‐archive  is  not  at  all  ubiquitously  exercised  or  understood  by  authors.  Authors  publishing  in  journals   that  are  not  completely  open,  or  “gold,”  required  both  prompting  and  advice  about  how  to  put  their   work  in  open  access  contexts.  Librarians  supporting  the  POOC  spent  a  great  many  hours  in  contact  with   course  authors,  corresponding  and  speaking  with  them  about  how  to  make  their  scholarship  available   in  open  access  repositories,  accessible  by  any  student  in  the  course.       A  few  book  publishers  were  willing  to  make  traditionally  published,  print-­‐based  academic  books  open   access,  at  least  temporarily.  The  University  of  Minnesota  Press,  NYU  Press,  and  University  of  California   Press  made  copyright-­‐restricted  books  and  book  chapters  openly  available  online  in  response  to  our   request  to  make  book  chapters,  and  in  one  case  an  entire  book,  available  to  accompany  an  author’s   video-­‐recorded  guest  lecture.   Publisher  restrictions  are  not  at  all  immediately  obvious  to  authors  or  to  faculty  forming  course  reading   lists.  Librarians  played  a  crucial  role  in  supporting  this  open  online  course  by  identifying,  promoting,   and  advising  faculty  and  their  publishers  about  open  access  self-­‐archiving.       97  

2013


The (Hidden)  Labor  of  Creating  the  POOC   In  this  section,  members  of  the  Inq13  collective  explore  the  various  forms  of  “hidden”  labor  involved  in   the  creation  of  an  open  online  course       Website  development  &  instructional  technology  (Karen  Gregory,  John  Boy,  Fiona  Lee)    

There is  a  familiar  heroic  narrative  about  the  genesis  of  new  products  and  services  in  the  tech  sector,   including  educational  technology:  “We  worked  100  hours  a  week,  slept  under  our  desks,  ate  cold  pizza   and  drank  stale  beer  so  we  could  write  code  and  ship  our  product  on  time—and  we  liked  it!”  Like  most   heroic  narratives,  this  narrative  is  as  revealing  for  what  it  leaves  out  as  for  what  it  includes.  While   building  a  product,  service  or  online  course  certainly  requires  concocting  abstractions  in  the  form  of   code,  we  have  to  “unpack”  (Miyake  2013)  what  we  mean  by  *coding*  in  this  context.     In  addition  to  the  time  and  energy  that  went  into  building  the  web  infrastructure  (setting  up  pages,   categories,  widgets  etc.),  there  was  a  lot  of  discussion—online  and  in  person—about  course  goals,   envisioning  what  kind  of  work  course  participants  would  do,  and  how  they  would  use  the  site.  In  other   words,  the  work  of  building  the  website  was  not  just  “coding”  in  the  limited  sense  of  creating  and   manipulating  computer  algorithms.  It  was  also  thinking,  talking,  debating,  questioning,  and  imagining.     In  this  section,  we  will  reflect  on  how  the  POOC  was  built  and  highlight  three  forms  of  labor  that  are   likely  to  be  missed  in  the  usual  narrative:  pedagogical  practice,  aesthetic  imagination,  and  the   accumulated  labor  of  the  “code  base.”     The  Labor  of  Teaching.  Perhaps  the  first  thing  to  stress  when  considering  the  hidden  labor  of  the   website  is  that  those  of  us  who  came  together  to  create  the  site  had  already  taught  for  several  years.   We  did  not  come  to  this  task  as  simply  as  “builders”  or  “coders,”  but  as  educators,  scholars,  and   Instructional  Technologists.  Each  member  of  the  site  team  was  able  to  bring  to  bear  several  years  of   classroom  experience,  as  well  as  experience  collaborating  with  faculty  across  disciplines  to  design  and   implement  “hybrid”  assignments.  This  means  that  we  not  only  had  experience  with  what  “works,”  but   also  with  what  can  fail,  despite  the  designers’  (or  teachers’)  intentions.     The  challenge  of  creating  this  particular  course  site  was  not  only  a  challenge  of  designing  a  functional   site  to  accommodate  the  coordination  and  logistics  of  the  site  (such  as  to  create  space  for  blogging  or   posting  media  artifacts),  but  also  to  lay  out  the  site  so  as  to  structure,  facilitate,  and  implement  the   course  goals  and  intentions.     The  Labor  of  Imagination  &  Design.  In  considering  the  question  of  labor,  we  cannot  overlook  the  role   the  imagination  played.  Creating  the  POOC  site  was  an  act  of  giving  form  or  realizing  the  ideas,  goals,   and  desires  for  the  course.  If  the  POOC  was  to  be  a  space  for  communication  and  conversation  among   participants,  the  challenge  of  this  site  was  to  imagine  how  to  design  a  space  that  could  foster   community,  across  a  series  of  mediated  spaces  and  through  the  thoughtful  use  of  the  tools  at  hand,   including  WordPress  and  the  Commons  In  A  Box  platform.  At  the  same  time,  given  that  we  were   building  the  website  for  participants  rather  than  for  users,  we  had  to  re-­‐imagine  what  “user  experience”   means.  This  required  building  a  website  that  was  not  only  functional,  well  organized  and  easy  to   navigate.  The  website  also  had  to  be  designed  in  a  way  that  encouraged  participants  to  contribute   their  own  ideas  and  goals  for  the  course,  and  that  was  flexible  enough  to  meet  the  course’s  changing   needs.  To  do  so,  we  had  to  use  our  imagination  to  anticipate  the  perceptions  and  responses  of   98  

2013


participants, but  in  a  way  that  remained  open  to  their  imagination  of  how  they  approached  the  course.   In  other  words,  the  work  of  building  the  website  did  not  just  happen  at  the  beginning,  in  anticipation  of   the  start  of  the  semester;  it  was  an  ongoing  process  of  maintenance  that  involved  engaging  with   participants’  needs.     The  Political  Economy  of  Service  Provision.  Another  case  in  which  we  need  to  broaden  our   understanding  of  the  kinds  of  labor  coding  entails  is  with  regard  to  the  tools  or  “code  base”  we  worked   with.  Software  products  such  as  WordPress,  BuddyPress,  and  the  CUNY-­‐developed  Commons  In  A  Box   suite  are  not  just  abstractions  all  the  way  down;  rather,  they,  too,  are  accumulations  of  people’s   imaginative  and  creative  work.  To  say  that  simply  we  built  on  or  leveraged  existing  code  bases  is  to   reify  this  and  to  blot  out  the  political  economy  of  free  and  open  source  software  (FOSS)  development.   While  the  FOSS  world  is  often  seen  as  the  epitome  of  the  “sharing  economy”  it  also  intersects  in  some   ways  with  broader  labor  regimes.  “FOSS  development,  with  its  flexible  labor  force,  global  extent,   reliance  on  technological  advances,  valuation  of  knowledge,  and  production  of  intangibles,  has  fully   embraced  the  modern  knowledge  economy”  (Chopra  and  Dexter  2007,  20).     The  challenges  of  POOC  videography  (Amanda  Matles  and  Stephanie  Anderson)  

As doctoral  candidates  in  the  Critical  Social  Personality  Psychology  program,  Geography  program,  and   Videography  Fellows  at  the  Graduate  Center,  we  entered  the  Inq13  POOC  collaboration  well   acquainted  with  the  nuances  of  using  video  in  academic  settings.  The  task  in  the  POOC,  though—to   livestream,  capture,  and  immediately  publish  the  video  recordings  of  the  various  classes  online— presented  a  number  of  ethical,  technical,  and  logistical  challenges  unique  to  participatory  open  online   courses.  Arguably,  the  introduction  of  camera  equipment  into  any  social  space  changes  the  dynamics   and  feelings  of  participants.  While  some  students  were  comfortable  having  their  likeness  seen  by  a   mostly  anonymous  online  audience,  others  expressed  concerns  and  anxieties.  Yet,  in  order  to  achieve   an  intimate  feel  for  online  participants,  consent  from  all  students  was  needed.  This  tension  of  consent   was  compounded  by  the  video  crew’s  presence  in  the  midst  of  intimate  group  discussions.  The  feeling   of  embeddedness  for  online  viewers  sometimes  came  at  the  risk  of  vulnerability  for  graduate  students,   instructors,  and  speakers.     Working  within  the  instantaneous  time-­‐space  of  participatory  open  online  courses,  the  transmission  of   pedagogical  material  in  video  form—available  in  real  time  or  overnight—is  actually  the  result  of   professional  A/V  and  computer  set-­‐ups  and  many  invisible  hours  of  planning  and  labor.  Each  location   and  unique  class  structure  required  specific  A/V  design.  Because  there  were  multiple  presenters,   audiences,  rooms,  and  auditoriums,  we  needed  not  only  a  hard  wire  Ethernet  connection  in  each   location,  but  also  flexibility  and  breadth  in  audio  recording  equipment.  Inq13  used  a  two-­‐person  crew:   one  person  operated  the  camera  while  the  other  live  mixed  the  audio,  monitored  the  livestream,  and   received  and  reacted  to  feedback  from  other  POOC  collaborators  watching  the  stream  online.   Additionally,  an  entire  video  post-­‐production  process  occurred  within  the  following  24  hours  of  each   class.  This  included  the  addition  of  unique  title  cards  and  lower  thirds  for  each  speaker,  sound  mixing,   exporting,  file  compression,  and  uploading  new  videos  to  the  blog.  Long-­‐format  HD  video  files  are   extremely  bulky,  and  can  be  slow  to  work  with.  Once  edited,  the  file  for  a  one-­‐hour  course  usually   takes  at  least  2  hours  to  export,  then  must  be  further  compressed  for  internet  streaming.  The  entire   process  could  take  up  to  12  hours.  A  dedicated  hard  drive  with  at  least  2TB  storage  and  at  least  a  7200   rpm  processor  was  needed  to  produce  one  semester  of  the  POOC.     99  

2013


How to  best  realize  the  goals  and  objectives  of  the  POOC  required  a  continual  negotiation  between   what  is  ideal  and  what  is  practical  given  the  opportunities  and  limitations  involved  in  the  Inq13   POOC.  Timely  access  to  online  course  videos  were  central  to  integrate  online  POOC  student   participation  and  learning  through  the  Inq13  site.  Students  writing  weekly  assignments  and   participating  in  blog  conversations  could  refer  to  the  video  archive  at  any  time  and  as  many  times  as   needed.  Online  video  provides  learners  with  valuable  repetition  and  open  access.     The  labor  of  supporting  students  (Wilneida  Negrón)    

In the  early  planning  stages  of  the  POOC,  the  team  identified  the  need  for  a  Digital  Fellow  who  could   provide  support  in  integrating  technology  and  pedagogy  to  foster  an  active  learning  environment  that   would  challenge  students  to  think  critically  about  inequality  and  the  technologies  they  would  be   utilizing.  This  level  of  support  is  not  necessarily  unique  to  the  POOC,  as  it’s  been  highlighted  that   effective  technology  and  support  are  required  when  integrating  technologies  into  teaching,  learning,  or   both  (Cooley  and  Johnston  2001,  34).  At  the  same  time,  the  literature  on  best  practices  for  online   instruction  increasingly  emphasizes  a  focus  on  interactive,  skillful  use  of  technology,  and  clear   understanding  of  both  technical  and  interpersonal  expectations  (Tremblay  2006,  96).  However,   because  the  technology  and  participatory  features  of  the  POOC  involved  an  online  web  platform,  social   media,  and  digital  media  technologies,  the  Digital  Fellow’s  role  was  unique  in  that  I  had  to  support  the   deeply  ecological  nature  of  these  technologies  in  both  online  and  offline  face-­‐to-­‐face  learning  contexts.   This  required  me  to  partake  in  various  roles  as  a  facilitator,  community-­‐builder,  instructional  manager,   coach,  and  moderator.     The  initial  phase  of  the  class  consisted  of  helping  students  and  professors  navigate  around  the   multimodality  nature  of  the  POOC  (see  Kress,  2003)  and  to  evaluate  any  barriers  or  enablers  when   participating  and  using  technology  for  content-­‐creation,  collaborating,  and  knowledge-­‐building   (Vázquez-­‐Abad  et  al  2004,  239;Preece  2000,  152;  Richardson  2006,  52).  Since  it  was  imperative  that   the  students  be  able  to  utilize  digital  technologies,  I  conducted  two  short  surveys,  one  which  was   completed  in  class,  the  other  which  was  completed  via  an  online  survey,  which  gauged  the  students’   digital  skills  and  interest  in  the  digital  tools  they  wanted  to  learn  about.          

100

2013


A majority  of  POOC  students  were  interested  in  using  Zotero,  Flickr,  and  archiving-­‐based  projects  for   the  class.  This  reflects  what  students  already  felt  comfortable  with,  as  many  noted  that  the  digital  tools   they  most  had  experience  with  were  Zotero  and  Flickr.      

101

2013


The majority  of  students  expressed  an  interested  in  archiving  but  had  no  experience  with  it.  Also,   animation  and  information  filters  were  the  only  two  technologies  that  none  of  the  students  had   experience  in.       Although  studies  in  computer-­‐supported  collaborative  learning  frequently  under-­‐expose  the   interaction  between  students  and  technology  (Overdijk  and  van  Diggelen  2006,  5),  my  experience  as  a   Digital  Fellow  revealed  how  essential  this  perspective  is  for  identifying  additional  instruction  and   support  needed.  For  example,  through  these  assessments,  I  learned  of  the  varying  levels  of  digital   media  technologies  literacy  among  the  students;  some  students  were  proficient  and  had  been  using   digital  technologies  in  their  work  and  professional  life,  while  others  had  no  experience  in  digital   technologies  and/or  limited  use  of  social  media.  As  result,  I  created  several  online  groups/forums  to   promote  peer-­‐to-­‐peer  learning  and  foster  community-­‐problem  solving  and  information-­‐sharing  among   the  students  as  well  as  provided  individual  and  group  instruction  for  those  students  that  requested  it.   In  my  role  as  a  Digital  Fellow,  I  also  provided  students  with  information  regarding  the  various  digital   capacity  resources  and  workshops  throughout  the  Graduate  Center  community.         Lastly,  bringing  into  the  forefront  the  interaction  between  students  and  technology  in  online   collaborative  spaces  taught  me  not  to  assume  that  all  students  would  be  at  ease  using  these   technologies.  For  example,  in  facilitating  and  moderating  discussions  via  the  course  blog  or  during  the   live  lectures  via  our  #Inq13  hashtag,  the  asynchronous  collaboration  between  the  graduate  seminar   102  

2013


students and  the  wider  community  of  students  also  became  apparent.  Two  contributing  factors  to   these  were  some  students’  concerns  regarding  their  privacy  and  hesitation  to  use  their  public  social   media  profiles  in  conjunction  with  the  class.  As  a  result,  as  a  Digital  Fellow  I  also  had  to  be  prepared  to   negotiate  the  students’  own  views  about  how  they  wanted  to  use  digital  technologies  and  their  social   media  profiles  with  the  POOC’s  objective  of  fostering  transformative  and  open  dialogue  and   collaboration.     The  labor  of  project  management  and  coordination  (Jen  Jack  Gieseking)  

The POOC  involved  a  multitude  of  staff  who  came  in  and  out  of  Inq13’s  development,  enactment,  and   follow  up.  The  project  itself  had  many  moving  parts  and  needed  managing  in  every  direction,  and  as   Project  Manager,  I  dealt  with  these  issues.     It  was  first  necessary  to  determine  our  goals,  sketch  out  a  plan  to  accomplish  all  of  these  aims,  and   make  sure  each  contingent  piece  was  ready  upon  the  next.  We  had  a  few  weeks,  and  we  also  required   educational  technologists  to  help  us  think  through  not  only  user  experience  (UX)  and  information   architecture  (IA),  but  also  the  educational  technology  functions  and  support  needed  for  InQ13  to   function.  The  next  step  then  was  to  hire  staff  as  we  built  each  of  these  elements  to  develop  this  work   from  our  colleagues’  expertise  and  drive  the  project  forward.     Oversight  and  management  involves  a  great  deal  of  listening.  As  each  person  asked  me  as  manager   who  would  handle  the  UX  or  IA,  I  would  turn  around  and  assign  that  element  to  the  person  who   already  had  a  great  deal  of  insight  into  it.  Our  work  as  co-­‐developers  involved  a  lot  of  check-­‐ins  before   any  final  work  was  completed,  and  bringing  together  concerns,  questions,  and  the  expertise  of  those   who  could  answer  and  act  on  it.       Each  step  forward  in  managing  the  POOC  involved  a  million  little,  delicate  steps.  As  Stephanie   Anderson  and  Amanda  Matles  describe  above,  where  to  place  the  cameras  was  a  profound  question   that  took  weeks  of  study  and  discussion.  Edwin  Mayorga  sent  hundreds  of  emails  requesting  meetings   with  activists  in  East  Harlem  and  making  inroads  to  connect  students  to  the  community.  Our   Wordpress  and  Commons  In  A  Box  developer,  Raymond  Hoh,  handled  difficult  fixes  overnight  and   expanded  the  ways  the  site  and  course  could  afford  a  collaborative  space  for  students  and  Inq13  team   alike.  In  the  ways  we  care  and  teach  and  produce  knowledge,  the  same  holds  true  in  the  collaborative   process  of  producing  a  POOC.     There  was  also  the  matter  of  my  own  labor.  I  was  all  at  once  developer,  coder,  teaching  assistant,   online  user,  videographer,  educational  technologist,  and  the  primary  event  support.  I  sometimes  show   up  in  the  course  videos  because  I  invited  the  guest  speakers  for  those  weeks,  or  someone  was  needed   to  run  the  laptop.  I  live-­‐tweeted  class  sessions,  I  enrolled  in  the  course,  and,  more  than  anything,  I   learned.  All  of  this  innovation  expands  not  only  our  ability  to  teach  but  also  what  we  know  and  how  we   share  it.        

103

2013


Conclusion: Opening  Education  in  the  Future   We  began  the  POOC  with  an  emphasis  on  participatory  pedagogy,  on  concrete  interactions  between  a   student  community  and  a  geographically  specific  urban  community,  which  necessitated  a  model  far   removed  from  the  sage-­‐on-­‐a-­‐stage,  broadcast  teaching  environments  employed  in  most  MOOCs.  While   MOOCs  have  spurred  discussions  about  online  courses  extending  the  reach  of  higher  education   institutions  (and,  in  the  process,  proffering  new,  more  profitable  business  models  for  them),  our   experiences  with  the  Inq13  POOC  suggest  that  online  courses  that  emphasize  interaction  between   faculty,  students,  and  broader  communities  are  accompanied  by  significant  institutional  and  economic   costs.  On  the  Inq13  website,  our  credits  page  lists  nineteen  different  individuals  who  played  a  role  in   creating  the  course  experience.  If  MOOCs  are  sometimes  imagined  by  administrators  and  businesses  as   a  labor-­‐saving,  cost-­‐cutting  device  for  higher  education,  the  POOC  model  offers  another  model;  it  was,   in  fact,  a  job  creation  program.    To  be  clear,  this  is  perhaps  an  innovative  new  model  for  higher   education  that  has  the  potential  to  enliven  academic-­‐community  partnerships  in  interesting  ways.    It  is   also  one  that  requires  significant  investment  of  time,  money  and  labor  to  succeed.       As  this  essay  shows,  and  as  the  archived  course  website  reveals,  the  Inq13  POOC  was  a  valuable   experience,  not  least  of  all  because  of  it  offered  an  alterative  to  MOOCs,  prizing  openness  and   participatory  action  above  massiveness  of  scale.  While  this  attempt  to  create  an  innovative  model  of   what  opening  education  could  be  sometimes  resulted  in  messy  struggles  with  the  complex  social,   political,  and  economic  issues  related  to  inequality,  not  the  least  of  which  is  the  inequality  between   academics  and  community-­‐partners,  the  POOC  was  nevertheless  a  bold  endeavor  at  reimagining  what   higher  education  might  be  if  we  took  seriously  the  idea  of  ‘opening’  education.    Graduate  education   can  and  should  engage  with  the  possibilities  to  open  education  that  MOOCs  offer  but  it  must  do  so   through  thoughtful  models,  conceptualized  with  social  justice  in  mind.  We  proffer  the  Inq13   experiment  in  particular,  and  the  idea  of  the  POOC  more  generally,  as  one  possible  path  for  others   considering  future  experiments  in  open  graduate  education.        

104

2013


Bibliography

Bruff,  Derek  O.,  Douglas  H.  Fisher,  Kathryn  E.  McEwen,  and  Blaine  E.  Smith.  2013.  "Wrapping  a  MOOC:   Student  perceptions  of  an  experiment  in  blended  learning."  MERLOT  Journal  of  Online  Learning   and  Teaching  9  (2):  187–199.  Accessed  November  5,  2013.   http://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no2/bruff_0613.htm.   Chopra,  Samir  and  Dexter,  Scott  D.  2007.  Decoding  Liberation:  The  Promise  of  Free  and  Open  Source   Software.  New  York:  Routledge.  OCLC  81150603.   Fraser,  Nancy.  1996.  “Social  Justice  in  the  Age  of  Identity  Politics:  Redistribution,  Recognition,  and   Participation.”  Paper  presented  at  The  Tanner  Lectures  on  Human  Values,  Stanford  University   April  30–May  2.  Accessed  November  10,  2013.  http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-­‐ to-­‐z/f/Fraser98.pdf     Freire,  Paulo.  1993.  Pedagogy  of  the  Oppressed.  New  York:  Continuum.  OCLC  43929806.   Friedman,  Thomas.  2013.  “Revolution  Hits  the  Universities.”  The  New  York  Times,  January  26.  Accessed   January  26,  2013.  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/opinion/sunday/friedman-­‐revolution-­‐ hits-­‐the-­‐universities.html   Graham,  Charles  Ray.  2006.  “Blended  learning  systems:  Definition,  current  trends,  and  future   directions.”  In  Handbook  of  blended  learning:  Global  perspectives,  local  designs  edited  by  Curtis   Jay  Bonk  and  Charles  Ray  Graham,  3–21.  San  Francisco,  CA:  Pfeiffer.  OCLC  60776550.   Johnston,  Michelle  A.  and  Cooley,  Nancy.  2001.  “Toward  More  Effective  Instructional  Uses  of   Technology.  The  Shift  to  Virtual  Learning.”  The  Technology  Source.  November/December.   Accessed  November  5,  2013.  http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article&id=869.     Kress,  Gunther  R.  2003.  Literacy  in  the  new  media  age.  London:  RoutledgeFalmer.  OCLC  50527771.   Mills,  Charles  Wright.  1959.  The  Sociological  Imagination.  USA:  Oxford  University  Press.  OCLC  165883.   Miyake,  Keith.  "All  that  is  Digital  Melts  into  Code."  2013.  GC  Digital  Fellows  Blog.  October  25.  Accessed   October  25  2013.  http://digitalfellows.commons.gc.cuny.edu/2013/10/25/all-­‐that-­‐is-­‐digital-­‐ melts-­‐into-­‐code/.     Overdijk,  Maarten  and  Wouter  van  Diggelen.  2006.  Technology  Appropriation  in  Face-­‐to-­‐Face   Collaborative  Learning.  Workshop  at  First  European  Conference  on  Technology  Enhanced   Learning,  Crete,  Greece,  October  1–4.  Accessed  November  16,  2013.  http://ceur-­‐ws.org/Vol-­‐ 213/ECTEL06WKS.pdf.   Palloff,  Reena  M.,  &  Pratt,  Keith.  1999.  Building  learning  communities  in  cyberspace:  Effective   strategies  for  the  online  classroom.  San  Francisco,  CA:  Jossey-­‐Bass.  OCLC  40444568.   Powazek,  Derek  M.  2002.  Design  for  community:  The  art  of  connecting  real  people  in  virtual  places.   Indianapolis,  IN:  Pearson  Technology  Group.  OCLC  47945525.   Preece,  Jenny.  2000.  Online  communities:  Designing  usability  and  supporting  sociability.  Chichester,   UK:  Willey.  OCLC  43701690.   Tremblay,  Remi.  2006.  "Best  Practices"  and  Collaborative  Software  in  Online  Teaching.  The   International  Review  of  Research  in  Open  and  Distance  Learning,  7(1).   http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/309/486.     Rheingold,  Howard.  Net  Smart:  How  to  Thrive  Online.  MIT  Press.  Cambridge,  MA  02142,  2012.   Richardson,  Will.  2006.  Blogs,  wikis,  podcasts,  and  other  powerful  web  tools  for  classrooms.  Thousand   Oaks,  CA:  Corwin  Press.  OCLC  62326782.   Sanchez,  Sonia.  “More  than  panem  et  circenses.”  2013.  Reassessing  Inequality  and  Reimagining  the   21st  Century.  April  18.  Accessed  November  5,  2013.  http://inq13.gc.cuny.edu/more-­‐than-­‐ panem-­‐et-­‐circenses/.   105  

2013


Straumheim, Carl.  2013.  “Masculine  Open  Online  Courses.”  Inside  Higher  Ed,  September  3.  Accessed   November  5,  2013.  http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/09/03/more-­‐female-­‐ professors-­‐experiment-­‐moocs-­‐men-­‐still-­‐dominate.   Vázquez-­‐Abad,  Jesus,  Nancy  Brousseau,  Guillermina  Waldegg  C,  Mylène  Vézina,  Alicia  Martínez  D,   Janet  Paul  de  Verjovsky.  2004.  “Fostering  Distributed  Science  Learning  through  Collaborative   Technologies.”  Journal  of  Science  Education  and  Technology,  13(1):  227–232.   Vázquez-­‐Abad,  Jesus,  Nancy  Brousseau,  Guillermina  Waldegg  C,  Mylène  Vézina,  Alicia  Martínez  Dorado,   Janet  Paul  de  Verjovsky,  Enna  Carvajal,  Maria  Luisa  Guzman.  2005.  “An  Approach  to  Distributed   Collaborative  Science  Learning  in  a  Multicultural  Setting.”  Paper  presented  at  the  Seventh   International  Conference  on  Computer  Based  Learning  in  Science,  Zilina,  Germany,  July  2–6.   Accessed  November  13,  2013.  http://cblis.utc.sk/cblis-­‐cd-­‐ old/2003/3.PartB/Papers/Science_Ed/Learning_Teaching/Vazquez.pdf   Weis,  Lois  and  Michelle  Fine.  2012.  “Critical  Bifocality  and  Circuits  of  Privilege:  Expanding  Critical   Ethnographic  Theory  and  Design.”  Harvard  Educational  Review  82(2):  173–201.    

106

2013


Appendix E:  Paper  Submitted  to  the  Journal  of     Library  Innovation  (JOLI)    

“Open Scholarship  for  OpenEducation:     Building  the  JustPublics@365  POOC”    

107

2013


Open%Scholarship%for%OpenEducation:%% Building%the%JustPublics@365%POOC% ! Shawn(ta)!Smith,!Reference!Librarian,!The!Graduate!Center,!City!University!of!New!York! Polly!Thistlethwaite,!Chief!Librarian,!The!Graduate!Center,!City!University!of!New!York! Jessie!Daniels,!JustPublics@365,!The!Graduate!Center!,City!University!of!New!York! ! ! Author'Note' The!JustPublics@365!project!was!supported!in!part!by!a!grant!from!the!Ford!Foundation.! Correspondence!concerning!this!article!should!be!addressed!to!Shawn(ta)!Smith,!Library,!Graduate! School!and!University!Center,!City!University!of!New!York,!365!Fifth!Avenue,!New!York,!NY!10016.! Contact:!ssmith4@gc.cuny.edu! ! ! Abstract$ This!article!outlines!the!collaboration!between!librarians!at!the!Graduate!Center!Library!of!the!City! University!of!New!York!(CUNY)!and!JustPublics@365! (http://justpublics365.commons.gc.cuny.edu/about/),!an!initiative!designed!to!open!scholarly! communication!in!ways!that!connect!to!social!justice!activism,!part!of!which!involved!producing!a!an! open,!online!interdisciplinary!course!with!a!geographical!focus!on!East!Harlem.!This!participatory!open! online!course,!or!POOC,!was!developed!locally!without!a!licensed!provider!platform!or!licensed! scholarly!content.!It!was!designed!to!be!open!to!CUNY!students,!to!citizens!of!East!Harlem,!and!to!a! global!public!with!an!interest!in!social!justice.!Counter!to!the!trend!in!most!MOOCs!(massive!open! online!courses),!the!POOC!creators!wanted!all!the!readings!for!the!course!to!be!open.!Librarians! identified!open!access!course!readings!and!assisted!assigned!authors!in!selfZarchiving!their!work!in! open!access!contexts!according!to!publishers’!standing!policies.!In!the!end,!76!of!117!or!about!65%!of! the!identified!course!readings!were!available!in!open!access!journals!or!archived!in!open!repositories! either!permanently!or!for!the!duration!of!the!course.!In!order!for!open!online!courses!to!deliver!high! quality!education,!supporting!texts!and!other!works!must!be!open!and!available!to!every!reader.!The! success!of!open!online!education!is!fully!intertwined!with!the!expansion!of!open!access!scholarship.!! Keywords:*MOOCs,!open!access,!facultyZlibrarian!collaboration!!* ! $

108$

$

2013$


%

Open!Scholarship!for!Open!Education:!! Building!the!JustPublics@365!POOC! MOOCs$and$Libraries$ Higher!education!is!being!disrupted!by!MOOCs!(Massive!Open!Online!Courses),!or!so!some!would!have! us!believe.!The!New*York*Times!dubbed!2012!“the!year!of!the!MOOC”!(Pappano,!2012).!The!Chronicle* of*Higher*Education!and!Inside*Higher*Education!ran!stories!on!MOOCs!regularly!throughout!most!of! 2012!and!2013.!Leading!private!and!public!universities!have!invested!funding!in!and!focus!on!MOOCs! suggesting!that!open,!online!teaching!and!attendant!technologies!may!reinvent!all!higher!education! (Heller,!2013)!and!even!end!global!poverty!(Friedman,!2013).!These!idealistic!forecasts,!however,!are! predicated!on!the!condition!that!MOOCs!can!extend!higher!education,!without!payment!or!condition,! to!the!people!who!might!apply!such!learning!to!transform!lives!and!society.! The!term!“MOOC”!was!coined!by!Canadian!educational!technologists!Dave!Cormier!and!George! Siemens!in!2008!(Cormier!and!Siemens,!2010).!Since!that!time,!different!kinds!of!MOOCs!have! emerged.!Connectivist!MOOCs,!or!cMOOCs,!are!designed!to!foster!community,!connection!and!peerZ toZpeer!learning;!these!are!generally!produced!using!locallyZdesigned,!often!openZsource!platforms.! The!second,!and!muchZhyped!and!wellZfinanced!xMOOCs,!such!as!Udacity!and!Coursera,!propose!to! extend!lecture!videos!(and!sometimes!reading!materials)!to!those!who!register!for!these!courses! (Wiener,!2013).!However,!xMOOCs!tend!to!restrict!their!course!materials!to!those!who!are!officially! enrolled;!typically,!course!reading!materials!are!not!available!to!those!outside!the!course,!thus! rendering!a!significant!redefinition!of!the!word!“open.”!(Otte,!2012),!The!participatory,!open!online! course!we!created!is!more!aligned!with!cMOOCs!than!with!xMOOCs.! The!application!of!licensed!content!of!any!kind!is!arguably!incongruent!with!the!aim!and!purpose!of!a! course!with!“open”!as!part!of!the!acronym!MOOC.!Licensed!access,!even!if!freely!available!to!online! course!attendees,!requires!some!form!of!registration.!Such!content!is!not!at!all!“open.”!Clay!Shirky! asserts!that!the!real!revolutionary!benefit!of!new!cultural!and!education!technologies!is!openness! (Parry,!2012),!yet!current!xMOOC!models!that!keep!course!materials!behind!registration!walls,!building! potential!for!revenueZgeneration,!compromise!this!benefit.!The!recent!partnerships!between!Elsevier! and!edX!(Elsevier,!2013)!and!between!Coursera!and!Chegg,!consolidating!textbooks!by!Cengage! Learning,!Macmillan!Higher!Education,!Oxford!University!Press,!SAGE,!and!Wiley!(Doyle,!2013)!point!to! a!trend!in!xMOOCs!in!educational!enclosure!rather!than!openness!(Watters,!2013).!xMOOC!models! currently!amount!to!a!shaded!variation!on!current!higher!education!models!providing!licensed! academic!content!to!a!defined!and!regulated!student!audience.!!! Three!major!xMOOC!service!providers!have!entered!the!market:!Udacity,!Coursera,!and!edX.!Udacity! and!Coursera!are!forZprofit!enterprises!assembling!“open”!course!content!in!commercial!software.!EdX! is!a!notZforZprofit!platform!developed!by!Harvard!and!MIT!with!an!initial!investment!of!$30Zmillion,! offered!to!university!partners!to!share!the!revenue!they!generate!(Kolowich,!2013).!All!these!platforms! are!designed!to!extend!the!reach!of!higher!education!by!delivering!courses!online!to!great!numbers!of! students!including!those!in!untapped,!often!geographically!disparate!markets,!and!at!lower,! “affordable”!costs.!Subsidized!by!universities!and!their!software!providers,!xMOOCs,!are!intended!to! lower!costs!to!student!consumers,!yet!still!return!profits!for!universities!and!their!xMOOC!providers! through!an!as!yet!to!be!determined!revenueZgenerating!models.!! 109$

2013$


%

Libraries!have!traditionally!offered!faculty!copyright!advice!and!supported!courses!with!reserve! software!and!scanning!services,!shepherding!extension!of!licensedZlibrary!content!for!exclusive!use!by! a!wellZdefined!set!of!universityZaffiliated!student!users.!Under!current!licensing!models,!this!content! cannot!be!extended!to!the!massive,!unaffiliated,!undefined,!and!unregistered!body!of!MOOC!enrollees! without!tempting!lawsuits.!As!illustrated!in!the!Georgia!State!University!case,!publishers!will!sue! universities!providing!traditionallyZenrolled!students!access!to!course!reserve!readings,!even!if!the! published!readings!are!passwordZprotected!and!selected!according!to!reasonable!interpretations!of! fair!use!guidelines!(Smith,!2013).!Though!universities!may!open!courses!to!anyone!with!an!Internet! connection!and!a!willingness!to!participate,!the!vast!majority!of!supporting!course!content!Z!including! books,!book!chapters,!articles,!and!films!–!cannot!be!distributed!freely!and!openly.!Though!university! libraries!may!own!the!supporting!content,!it!is!owned!on!the!condition!that!it!is!used!solely!by!a!local,! limited,!defined,!and!regulated!set!of!university!affiliates.!Texts!supporting!open!online!courses!must! be!either!published!open!access!with!copyright!owner!consent!or!licensed!explicitly!for!open!online!use! (Fowler!&!Smith,!2013).!! Kendrick!and!Gashurov!discuss!several!potential!models!for!MOOC!enrollment!and!revenueZgeneration! that!offer!tiered!access!to!licensed!textbooks!and!courseZsupporting!material.!Licensed!textbooks!and! journals!inaccessible!to!nonZpaying!customers!might!be!free!or!discounted!for!“premium”!paying! MOOC!customers,!for!example!(Kendrick!and!Gashurov,!2013;!Courtney,!2013).!Coursera!provides! access!to!a!limited!set!of!online!licensed!resources,!just!like!libraries!do,!to!expand!access!for!their! registered!MOOC!students.!This!access!is!supplied!at!a!cost!to!the!course!provider,!and!it!is!limited!to!a! pale!fraction!of!scholarship!available!to!traditional!universityZaffiliated!students!through!course! reserves!and,!increasingly,!through!open!access!scholarship.1!The!Coursera!and!EdX!licensing!models! require!universities!to!subsidize!registered!MOOC!students’!access!to!a!licensed!body!of!scholarly! work,!under!defined!terms,!for!a!limited!amount!of!time.!UniversityZsupported!Coursera!and!EdX!are! poised!to!expand!MOOC!student!access!to!academic!content,!but!only!within!limits.!MOOC!course! offerings!may!be!massive!and!online,!but!if!the!course!content!is!not!also!open!and!sustained!without! regulation!or!payment,!the!transformative!potential!of!the!project!is!eviscerated.!!! Open!access!scholarship,!in!contrast!to!licensed!traditionally!published!work,!is!available!to!all!variety! of!reader,!to!any!student!with!an!Internet!connection,!online!or!on!campus,!in!any!economy.! Scholarship!published!in!“gold”!or!completely!open!access!journals,!or!scholarship!selfZarchived!in! “green”!open!access!repositories!or!on!author!websites!is!accessible!by!anyone,!and!can!be!read!by! any!student,!free!of!charge,!in!conjunction!with!any!course.!Only!open!access!publishing!will!expand! the!quality!and!variety!of!academic!works!available!to!the!webZbrowsing!worldwide!public.!Open! access!scholarship,!currently!estimated!at!no!more!than!25%!of!scholarly!output!(Gargouri!et!al.,!2012),! must!form!the!backbone!of!the!project!for!MOOCs!to!realize!their!muchZtouted!potential!to!expand! and!to!transform!higher!education.!Securing!scholarship!in!open!access!contexts!must!go!handZinZhand! with!MOOCZbuilding.!They!are!two!logical,!inseparable!parts!of!the!same!project!to!enhance!global! public!access!to!higher!education.!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1

!See!The*Dramatic*Growth*of*Open*Access*Series! http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2006/08/dramaticZgrowthZofZopenZaccessZseries.html! 110$

2013$


%

CUNY$and$JustPublics@365$ JustPublics@365!(http://justpublics365.commons.gc.cuny.edu/about/)!Envisioning*Social*Justice*in*the* Digital*Age!is!a!project!to!connect!scholars!and!research!with!citizens!and!social!justice!activists.!As!an! element!of!the!project,!our!participatory!open!online!course!(POOC),!engaged!graduate!students!in! communityZbased!participatory!research!(CBPR)!with!activists!in!the!New!York!City!neighborhood!of! East!Harlem.!This!course,!titled!#InQ13,!Reassessing*Inequality*and*Reimagining*the*21st*Century*posed! the!question:!How!do!digital!technologies!augment!the!way!we!both!research!inequality!and!resist!its! corrosive!effects?!The!course!featured!a!variety!of!live!and!videoZrecorded!lectures,!assigned!readings,! and!a!series!of!assignments.!An!array!of!invited!interdisciplinary!faculty!participated!as!online!lecturers! and!discussants,!many!of!whom!were!also!authors!of!course!readings.!! This!course!would!be!difficult!to!replicate,!with!many!unique!conditions.!First,!the!customZbuilt!POOC! was!initiated!with!grant!funding!and!university!support.!Second,!authors!of!many!of!the!readings!were! accessible!to!the!librarians!and!course!coordinators.!Finally,!members!of!a!local!community! participated!fully!in!course!activities.!!! The!City!University!of!New!York!(CUNY)!is!the!public!university!system!of!New!York!City.!With!24! institutions!across!New!York!City!and!about!270,000!degreeZcredit!students!and!273,000!continuing! and!professional!education!students,!it!is!the!third!largest!university!system!in!the!United!States,!and! the!nation’s!largest!public!urban!university.!The!Graduate!Center!is!CUNY’s!principal!doctorateZ granting!institution!offering!more!than!30!doctoral!degrees!in!the!humanities,!sciences,!and!social! sciences!with!significant!research!on!global!and!progressive!policy!issues.!CUNY!provides!highZquality,! accessible!education,!and!a!mission!befitting!the!JustPublics@365!project.!! CUNY!centrally!licenses!Blackboard!software!supporting!passwordZprotected!course!readings!for! enrolled!CUNY!students.!(C)opyright@CUNY,!a!CUNYZwide!library!committee,!posts!guidelines!and! resources!for!CUNY!instructors!managing!course!reserve!readings.!Several!CUNY!libraries!additionally! offer!Sirsi!Dynix!ERes!software!and!scanning!services!for!local!course!support.!Some!CUNY!Graduate! Center!faculty!use!Blackboard!for!reserve!reading!support;!others!use!the!CUNY!Academic!Commons! and!OpenCUNY!platforms,!both!of!which!provide!password!protection!for!licensed!course!documents.! Still!other!Graduate!Center!instructors!employ!commercial!passwordZprotected!fileZsharing!sites! (Dropbox!and!Google!Drive,!for!example)!to!post!course!readings.!A!few!instructors!continue!the! analog!practice!of!distributing!photocopies,!particularly!for!small!seminars,!while!others!provide!only! assigned!reading!lists!to!students!who!must!then!scavenge!and!share!readings!on!their!own.!!! Following!from!its!goal!of!engaging!students!both!affiliated!and!unaffiliated!with!the!Graduate!Center,! the!#InQ13!course!could!not!use!the!CUNY!and!GC!course!delivery!platforms!with!students!and! lecturerZparticipants!without!CUNY!affiliation.!LibraryZlicensed!academic!works!ZZ!journal!articles,! books,!book!chapters,!and!other!media!ZZ!could!not!be!extended!to!audiences!other!than!GCZaffiliated! students!without!violating!library!license!agreements.!Using!licensed!readings,!or!tiered!access!to! them,!to!support!the!#InQ13!course!violated!the!social!justice!principles!of!the!JustPublics@365! project.!From!the!outset,!there!was!little!question!that!the!readings!assigned!for!the!#InQ13!course! had!to!be!open!access.!Course!access!to!scholarly!work!was!considered!within!the!larger!framework!of! increasing!public!access!to!academic!work!and!furthering!the!public!good.!

111$

2013$


%

Building$a$POOC,$Building$OA$Scholarship$ At!the!March!2013!University!of!Pennsylvania!conference!MOOCs*and*Libraries:*Massive*Opportunity* or*Overwhelming*Challenge?,!Jennifer!Dorner,!Head!of!Doe/Moffitt!Library!Instruction!and!User! Services!at!UC!Berkeley,!recognized!MOOCs!as!“a!real!opportunity!to!educate!faculty!about!the!need! for!owning!the!rights!to!their!content!and!making!it!accessible!to!other!people”!(Howard,!2013).! LibrarianZfaculty!collaboration!in!MOOCZbuilding!also!involves!conversation!with!authors!about! transforming!scholarly!communication.!We!called!upon!activists,!artists,!and!academic!authors!who! participated!in!our!open!online!course,!as!well!as!the!authors!they!cited,!to!make!their!work!open! access.!MOOCs!offer!authors!unique!opportunity!to!widen!readership!and!to!raise!the!profile!of!their! work.!Prompted!by!the!potential!to!increase!exposure!(and!perhaps!sales),!several!book!publishers! prompted!by!their!authors!proved!to!be!willing!to!make!traditionally!published!works!open!access,!at! least!temporarily!and!in!part,!if!they!were!assigned!for!our!course.!Our!cMOOC!–!like!project!achieved! results!similar!to!the!xMOOC!content!licensing,!only!without!the!licenses.!! Making!course!readings!open!access!required!a!great!deal!of!work!with!divisions!of!labor!and! responsibility.!These!divisions!of!labor,!fuzzy!at!first,!became!clearer!as!the!course!progressed!and!as! librarians!worked!with!instructors!to!review!course!readings.!In!a!conventional!course,!one!instructor! selects!readings!to!teach!a!small!group!of!students.!In!this!unique!participatory!course,!a!20Zmember! team!was!required!to!produce!the!course,!with!2!instructors,!for!thousands!of!potential!students,!both! enrolled!at!the!Graduate!Center!and!not!enrolled,!participating!from!geographically!dispersed! locations.2!!While!all!embraced!open!access!to!scholarly!and!artistic!works!as!a!worthy!goal,!none!were! experienced!in!the!mechanics!of!open!access!discovery,!identification,!permissionsZseeking,!and! posting.!To!accomplish!this,!Jessie!Daniels!of!the!JustPublics@365!project!approached!librarians!to!join! the!effort.!! Course!instructors!provided!librarians!with!an!initial!”wish!list”!of!readings!for!the!course,!selected!for! content!only,!without!consideration!of!licensing!restrictions,!This!list!totaled!117!articles,!book! chapters,!websites,!blogs,!films,!and!entire!books.!Daniels!and!her!team!presented!the!list!with!47! open!access!entries,!or!about!40%!of!the!!list.!Librarians!checked!the!team’s!work.!We!confirmed!that! the!articles!in!this!batch!were!published!in!entirely!open!access,!or!“gold”!open!access!journals!by! checking!against!the!Directory!of!Open!Access!Journals!(doaj.org)!that!lists!over!10,000!peerZreviewed! scholarly!journals.!We!reviewed!the!remaining!list!to!determine!what!steps!were!necessary!to!obtain! key!readings!in!open!access!formats.!! A!numerical!overview!of!our!efforts!is!below.!! In!addition!to!the!fortyZseven!entries!already!open!access!(Already!OA)!the!team!presented,!librarians! secured!another!10!in!open!access!repositories!or!author!websites!(New!OA!permanent),!and!another! ??!(New!OA!temporary)!with!author’s!permission!in!a!temporary!open!access!location.!ForyZfive! percent!of!the!wishedZfor!postings!could!not!be!secured!in!open!access!locations!(No!OA!at!All).!! !

!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2

!For!specifics!on!the!collaborative!effort!to!produce!the!course,!see!(forthcoming)!article!in!Journal*of* Interactive*Technology*and*Pedagogy.!! ! 112$

2013$


52' 12' 29' 5' 11' 4' 4'

Journals'='65%'OA'

Books'='25%'OA'

Book'Chapters'='52%'OA'

Film'='100%'OA'

Websites'='100%'OA'

Blogs'='100%'OA'

Other'='100%'OA'

113#

117'

Course'Readings'

All'='65%'OA'

0'

20'

40'

60'

80'

100'

120'

140'

4'

4'

11'

5'

15'

3'

34'

76'

Total'OA''

1'

0'

0'

1'

0'

0'

8'

10'

New'OA' (permanent)'

0'

0'

0'

0'

14'

2'

3'

19'

New'OA' (temporary)'

3'

4'

11'

4'

1'

1'

23'

47'

Already'OA''

POOC#Assigned#Readings:#Open#Access#Successes#

2013#

0'

0'

0'

0'

14'

9'

18'

41'

No'OA'at'All'


Conversations#with#Copyright#Owners# The$course$design$included$at$least$a$dozen$internationally$renowned$scholars$as$guest$lecturers.$ Several$had$authored$key$texts$for$the$course$assigned$as$either$book$chapters$or$as$entire$books,$ none$of$which$were$published$as$open$access$texts.$$In$order$to$make$these$crucial$books$and$book$ chapters$open$access,$librarians$had$to$obtain$permissions$from$and$collaboration$with$their$ publishers.$$$ Early$in$the$term,$#InQ13$course$coordinators$approached$filmmaker$Ed$Morales$about$his$2008$ documentary$film,$Whose&Barrio?:&the&Gentrification&of&East&Harlem,$requesting$that$he$post$it$free$ online$for$the$course’s$second$module.$Unlike$most$academic$authors,$Morales$retains$the$copyright$ for$his$work,$and$he$was$also$a$guest$for$the$course.$He$readily$complied$with$the$course$organizers’$ request,$posting$his$film$to$be$viewed$free,$open,$and$online$via$the$Internet$Movie$Database$ (IMDB.com).$Morales’$eager$participation$was$early$inspiration$to$at$least$attempt$to$convince$book$ authors$and$publishers$to$make$their$work$openly$available.# Librarians$contacted$book$publishers$and$copied$authors$and$guest$lecturers$(often$the$same$person)$ on$the$correspondence.$This$collaborative$request$proved$to$be$compelling$to$a$few$publishers,$but$an$ impressive$few.$Of$the$19$publishers$contacted,$3$understood$the$nature$of$our$request$and$seized$the$ opportunity$to$offer$open,$unlimited$distribution$of$materials$for$the$duration$of$the$course.$All$ publishers$who$agreed$to$collaborate$provided$free$online$access$for$a$defined$period$of$time$with$ course$traffic$directed$to$and$access$governed$by$publisher$websites.$$ The$collaborating$publishers$were$the$University$of$California$(UC)$Press,$New$York$University$(NYU)$ Press,$and$University$of$Minnesota$(UMN)$Press.$UC$posted$the$introduction$and$chapter$3$of$Dávila’s$ 2004$Barrio&Dreams:&Puerto&Ricans,&Latinos,&and&the&Neoliberal&City.$Prior$to$our$request,$the$press$ featured$the$book’s$introduction$on$its$website,$as$a$teaser.$UC$also$posted$2$chapters$of$Pulido,$ Barraclough,$and$Cheng’s$2012$A&People’s&Guide&to&Los&Angeles&and$chapter$5$of$Wilson$Gilmore’s$2007$ Golden&Gulag:&Prisons,&Surplus,&Crisis,&and&Opposition&in&Globalizing&California.$NYU$Press$provided$ Londono’s$chapter$“Aesthetic$Belonging:$The$Latinization$&$Renewal$of$Union$City,$New$Jersey”$from$ the$2012$anthology$Latino&Urbanism:&The&Politics&of&Planning,&Policy,&and&Redevelopment$edited$by$ Diaz$and$Torres.$UMN$offered$the$biggest$win$as$measured$by$pagination,$posting$the$entirety$of$Katz’$ 2004$Growing&Up&Global:&Economic&Restructuring&and&Children’s&Everyday&Lives$in$downloadable$PDF$ format$also$through$a$link$on$the$press’s$web$site.$Publishers$kept$all$links$live$from$the$time$we$ reached$agreement$through$the$end$of$the$semesterflong$course.$$ Some$publishers$did$not$respond$while$others$responded$to$decline$our$invitation$to$participate.$$One$ book$publisher$responded$with$a$course$pack$license$agreement$requesting$a$fee$to$permit$57$pages$to$ be$copied$no$more$than$20$times.$Subsequent$attempts$to$clarify$indicated$that$the$publisher$either$ misunderstood$the$request$or$was$at$a$loss$about$how$to$respond.$$ In$yet$another$challenging$situation,$an$authorflecturer$believed$she$retained$copyright$and$the$ authority$to$selffdistribute$requested$chapters$of$her$forthcoming$book.$She$assured$course$organizers$ that$publisher’s$correspondence$confirmed$permission$to$post$chapters$on$the$course$website.$ However,$later$review$of$the$email$correspondence$revealed$a$misinterpretation$of$the$publisher’s$

114#

2013#


!

meaning.$The$publisher$had,$in$fact,$withheld$permission$to$post$the$work.$We$took$the$posted$ chapters$down$when$we$discovered$the$error.$ When$publishers$refused$to$make$readings$open$online,$and$when$instructors$deemed$the$work$ essential$reading,$librarians$inserted$a$WorldCat.org$link$to$the$course$syllabus,$directing$POOC$ students$to$libraries$and$interlibrary$loan$networks$first,$and$to$booksellers$second.$WorldCat.org$ directs$readers$to$local$library$holdings$or$to$interlibrary$loan$services.$Libraries’$resource$sharing$ethic,$ manifest$in$increasingly$efficient$article$delivery$through$interlibrary$loan$networks$–$is$a$forbearer$of$ the$open$access$publishing$movement.$$ Self;Archiving#Articles$ CUNY$does$not$yet$have$an$institutional$repository,$which$is$vital$to$support$the$open$access$ infrastructure$that$our$POOC$required.$In$November$2011,$CUNY’s$University$Faculty$Senate$passed$a$ resolution$calling$for$an$institutional$repository$where$faculty$could$selffarchive$their$work$open$ access.$In$response,$the$CUNY$Office$of$Library$Services$with$the$University$Faculty$Senate$convened$a$ task$force$to$develop$a$repository$(Cirasella,$2011).$In$October$2012$the$task$force$forwarded$specific$ recommendations$outlining$a$plan$for$implementation$of$a$CUNYfwide$repository.$At$present,$CUNY$ administrators$continue$to$consider$these$recommendations.$In$fall$2013,$the$CUNY$Graduate$Center$ licensed$Digital$Commons$software$to$provide$a$platform$for$a$Graduate$Center$repository$called$CUNY$ Academic$Works.$It$is$pending$launch.$ Nevertheless,$librarians$were$successful$in$working$with$CUNY$and$nonfCUNY$authors$to$selffarchive$ their$scholarship$in$“green”$open$access$repositories.$The$SHERPA/RoMEO$tool$(at$ www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo)$was$essential$in$this$effort.$It$lists$the$sofcalled$“green”$open$access$ policies,$covering$over$22,000$academic$journals.$Publishers$offer$wildly$varying$terms$of$format$and$ embargo$policies$for$author$selffarchiving.$SHERPA/RoMEO$reported$in$2001$that$94%$of$the$titles$ covered$offered$some$form$of$author$selffarchiving$after$embargoes$that$ranged$from$0$to$24$months$ (Millington,$2011).$$Some$publishers$allow$prefpeerfreviewed$versions$only$to$be$archived;$others$insist$ that$authors$archive$only$peerfreviewed$versions$as$long$as$the$publishers$final$PDF$is$not&used.$Still$ others$require$selffarchiving$of$only$the$publisher’s$PDF.$SHERPA/RoMEO$also$notes$when$publishers$ specify$the$type$of$repositories$authors$may$employ$for$selffarchiving.$For$example,$some$restrict$ postings$to$temporary$repositories;$others$to$personal$author$websites$or$institutional$repositories;$ others$say$nonfprofit$repositories$are$permissible$under$standing$policy.$It$is$not$always$clear$what$ these$publisherfgenerated$and$applied$terms$mean.$ In$cases$where$authors$were$permitted$to$selffarchive$but$had$not$done$so$because$they$had$no$author$ website,$subject$repository,$or$institutional$repository,$we$created$a$temporary$site$to$satisfy$our$ needs$and$publisher’s$requirements.$We$set$up$a$#InQ13$course$repository$site$in$the$Community$ Texts$section$of$the$Internet$Archive$(archive.org),$an$open$repository$for$researchers,$historians,$ scholars,$the$print$disabled,$and$the$general$public.$This$arrangement$allowed$course$organizers$to$ post$material$on$behalf$of$authors$without$requiring$the$authors$to$do$the$posting$themselves.$We$ discovered$in$our$initial$review$that$one$course$authorflecturer$had$material$posted$there.$This$ inspired$us$to$use$it$when$authors$were$eager$to$have$their$work$made$available$openly$online,$but$ they$had$no$place$available$or$they$were$unable$to$post$themselves$because$they$lacked$support$or$ technical$knowfhow.$When$Sherpa/RoMEO$standing$policies$indicated$that$“nonfprofit”$repositories$ 115#

2013#


!

were$acceptable$locations$for$author$work,$we$left$the$work$up$in$the$#InQ13$permanently.$Otherwise,$ we$removed$materials$we$posted$there$upon$the$course’s$completion$because$we$did$not$have$explicit$ author$or$publisher$permissions$to$keep$the$works$there.$We$placed$8$journal$articles$permanently$in$ the$#InQ13$Community$Texts$section$out$of$18$journal$articles$and$book$chapters$we$uploaded$for$ course$support.$We$did$not$review$and$could$not$remove$author$postings$that$had$been$placed$there$ by$others$prior$to$our$course.$$ In$reviewing$the$course$lists$we$discovered$that$scholarship$is$sometimes$posted$openly,$without$ regard$for$publishers’$restrictions.$Posting$policies$are$not$at$all$immediately$obvious$to$authors$or$to$ faculty$forming$syllabi.$We$also$learned$that$while$author$selffarchiving$is$allowed$by$hundreds$of$ traditional$academic$publishers,$the$opportunity$to$selffarchive$is$not$at$all$ubiquitously$understood$or$ acted$upon$by$authors.$In$conversation$with$librarians,$though,$the$authors$inevitably$became$at$least$ aware$of$and$in$some$cases,$expert$in,$publisher’s$policies$as$it$applied$to$their$published$work.$$ Many$faculty$were$disappointed$by$the$publisher$restrictions$we$encountered.$This$gave$us$the$ opportunity$to$discuss$the$Scholarly$Publishing$and$Academic$Resources$Coalition$(SPARC)$Author$ Addendum$which$offers$a$range$of$options$and$prepared$authorfpublisher$contracts$for$academic$ authors$to$apply$to$retain$rights$to$published$academic$work.3$$ What#about#the#rest?# As$hard$as$we$tried,$we$could$not$do$it$all.$Fortyfone$of$117$or$about$35%$of$course$readings$and$ materials$could$not$be$placed$in$an$open$access$repository.$In$some$instances,$authors$did$not$engage$ in$any$conversation,$so$we$could$not$post$their$work$at$all.$Some$authors$could$not$selffarchive$their$ work$because$they$could$not$find$a$version$of$their$work$in$what$SHERPA/RoMEO$designates$as$a$pref print$(meaning$prefrefereed)$format$–$SHERPA/RoMEO’s$yellow$category.$Many$authors$have$not$kept$ a$personal$archive$of$draft$versions,$or$they$have$lost$track$of$them$and$did$not$want$to$scour$their$files$ for$requested$work$in$the$midst$of$a$busy$academic$term.$One$author$had$a$prefreferred$version$on$ hand,$but$she$declined$to$post$it$because$she$valued$the$improvements$made$by$peer$review.$One$ author$voiced$concern$about$multiple$formats$of$a$single$work$being$available,$one$from$the$publisher$ and$another$from$a$repository$posting,$because$she$thought$that$competing$versions$might$generate$ confusion.$ Some$authors$also$chose$to$assume$the$risks$of$posting$articles$in$violation$of$publishers’$standing$ policies.$One$author$of$a$heavily$cited$article$believed$that$he$retained$copyright$to$all$versions$of$his$ work.$The$article$originally$published$in$a$journal$that$SHERPA/RoMEO$indicated$did$not$condone$selff archiving$except$in$prefrefereed$versions.$The$canonical$article,$restricted$as$it$was,$was$already$readily$ available$anyway$in$several$places$in$publishers$PDF$format.$Course$organizers$left$it$to$students$to$find$ the$article$by$searching$the$web$on$their$own.$Since$it$was$not$posted$according$to$SHERPA/RoMEO’s$ representation$of$publisher’s$standing$policies,$the$course$did$not$link$to$it.$$ Not$insignificantly,$nearly$every$author$was$challenged$to$locate$prefpeerfreview$versions$of$work.$$ Many$of$the$faculty/authors$were$not$familiar$with$the$term$“prefpeerfreview$version”$and$once$they$ learned$of$it,$some$were$not$inclined$to$make$such$versions$public,$favoring$the$publisher’s$PDF$version$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 3

$http://www.sparc.arl.org/resources/authors/addendum$

116#

2013#


!

of$their$article$for$course$assignments$and$peerftofpeer$sharing.$Drafts$of$articles$published$several$ years$ago$were$often$lost$in$personal$archives$requiring$both$motivation$and$excavation$to$surface$and$ publish$it$via$“green”$open$access.$$ Conclusion# The$final$syllabus$of$the$#InQ13$course$featured$117$assigned$supporting$works,$65%$of$which$were$ ultimately$made$available$in$open$access$contexts.$The$course$generated$rich$discussion$among$ librarians,$organizers,$and$authorflecturers$about$the$vagaries$of$licensing$and$copyright,$prompting$ some$to$consider$the$benefits$and$the$imperatives$of$open$access$scholarship$for$the$first$time.$Nearly$ all$the$course$authorflecturers$are$engaged$with$social$justice$issues$or$community$activism$of$some$ kind,$and$they$are$quick$to$understand$open$access$scholarship$as$an$essential$element$of$open$online$ education.$$ Our$conversations$suggest$that$faculty$authors$must$understand$the$terms$of$academic$publishing$and$ distribution$in$order$to$prepare$and$archive$their$work$and$to$negotiate$terms$that$maximize$access$to$ it.$Scholars$attempting$to$connect$their$work$to$online$audiences$can$be$surprised$to$find$how$ thoroughly$their$scholarship$is$outfoffreach$to$nonfacademic$readers.$$ Scholars$often$assume$that$the$work$they$place$in$reputable$journals$is$positioned$for$wide$public$ readership,$sometimes$mistakenly$equating$the$prestige$of$a$journal$with$the$journal’s$distribution$and$ accessibility.$Working$with$enrolled$students$in$closed$access$courses,$faculty$have$not$encountered$ the$challenges$of$presenting$work$to$larger,$undefined$public$audiences.$$ Why$are$academic$library$users$not$hyperfaware$of$licensing$and$copyright$terms$of$their$publication?$ This$question$requires$more$exploration.$Subscriptionfbased$publishers$often$allow,$but$do$not$ promote$author$selffarchiving$opportunities.$In$addition,$libraries$make$licensed$article$retrieval$as$ seamless$and$transparent$as$possible$to$licensed$users,$rendering$invisible$the$copyright$and$licensing$ issues$governing$scholarly$publishing.$Faculty$searching$within$university$IPfspace,$and$those$at$home$ using$proxy$servers,$are$guided$without$interruption$through$pay$walls$to$libraryflicensed$content.$ Librarians$must$now$expose$those$seams$and$mechanisms$to$demonstrate$that$readers$without$ university$affiliation$are$blocked$from$the$scholarly$work$that$universityfaffiliated$readers$can$freely$ access.$ MOOCs$offering$restricted$or$tiered$access$to$licensed$scholarship$are$not,$in$fact,$“open,”$and$they$ bear$little$potential$to$transform$higher$education$by$massively$extending$its$reach.$A$successful$ expansion$of$online$higher$education$to$wider$publics$following$the$cMOOC$model$requires$a$robust$ infrastructure$of$open$access$scholarship.$Expansion$of$open$online$education$and$open$access$ publishing$are$essential$parts$of$the$same$project.$Libraries$working$with$faculty$form$the$bridge$ connecting$these$efforts$together.$ $

117#

$

2013#


!

References# MOOCs$and$Libraries$Event$Videos$Now$Available.$(2013,$April$9).$OCLC$Research.$Retrieved$June$28,$ 2013,$from$http://www.oclc.org/research/news/2013/04f09.html$$ Cirasella,$J.$(2011,$November$23).$CUNY$Institutional$Repository:$Coming$Soonfish?$Open&Access&@& CUNY.$Retrieved$from$http://openaccess.commons.gc.cuny.edu/2011/11/23/cunyfinstitutionalf repositoryfcomingfsoonfish/$ Cormier,$D.,$&$Siemens,$G.$(2010,$August).$Through$the$Open$Door:$Open$Courses$as$Research,$ Learning,$and$Engagement.$Educausereview&Online,$45(4),$30–39.$ Courtney,$K.$K.$(2013).$The$MOOC$syllabus$blues$Strategies$for$MOOCs$and$syllabus$materials.$College& &&Research&Libraries&News,$74(10),$514–517.$ Daniels,$J.$(2013).$MOOC$to$POOC:$Moving$from$Massive$to$Participatory$f$JustPublics@365.$ JustPublics@365.$Retrieved$June$27,$2013,$from$ http://justpublics365.commons.gc.cuny.edu/2013/02/05/moocftofpoocfmovingffromfmassivef tofparticipatory/$ Dávila,(A.,(Dávila,(A.,(&(ebrary,(I.((2004).(Barrio&Dreams:&Puerto&Ricans,&Latinos,&and&the&Neoliberal&City.$ Berkeley:$University$of$California$Press.$ Diaz,$D.$R.,$&$Torres.$(2012).$Latino&urbanism:&the&politics&of&planning,&policy,&and&redevelopment.$New$ York:$New$York$University.$ Doyle,$C.$(2013,$May$8).$Coursera$and$Chegg$Partner$Up$to$Provide$Free$Textbooks$for$Online$Courses.$ Technapex.$Retrieved$from$http://www.technapex.com/2013/05/courserafandfcheggfpartnerf upftofprovideffreeftextbooksfforfonlinefcourses/)$ Elsevier.$(2013,$October$23).$Elsevier$to$Provide$Textbooks$for$Five$New$edX$MOOCs.$Retrieved$from$ http://www.elsevier.com/about/pressfreleases/sciencefandftechnology/elsevierftofprovidef textbooksfforffivefnewfedxfmoocs$ Fowler,$L.,$&$Smith,$K.$(2013).$Drawing$the$Blueprint$As$We$Build:$Setting$Up$a$Libraryfbased$Copyright$ and$Permissions$Service$for$MOOCs.$DWLib&Magazine,$19(7/8).$doi:10.1045/july2013ffowler$ Friedman,$T.$L.$(2013,$January$27).$Revolution$Hits$the$Universities.$The&New&York&Times,$p.$1(L).$ Gargouri,$Y.,$Lariviere,$V.,$Gingras,$Y.,$Brody,$T.,$Carr,$L.,$&$Harnad,$S.$(2012,$October$26).$Testing&the& Finch&Hypothesis&on&Green&OA&Mandate&Ineffectiveness.$Other$presented$at$the$Open$Access$ Week$2012.$Retrieved$from$http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/344687/$ Gilmore,$R.$W.$(2007).$Golden&gulag:&prisons,&surplus,&crisis,&and&opposition&in&globalizing&California.$ Berkeley:$University$of$California$Press.$ Got$MOOC?$(2013).$School&Library&Journal,$59(4),$29–n/a.$ Heller,$N.$(2013,$May$20).$Laptop$U.$The&New&Yorker.$Retrieved$from$ http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/05/20/130520fa_fact_heller?currentPage=all$ How$are$Open$Access$and$MOOCS$disrupting$the$academic$community$in$different$ways?$(n.d.).$SAGE& Open.$Retrieved$from$ http://www.sagepub.com/press/2013/october/SAGE_OAMOOCSdisruptingacademiccommdiff ways.sp$ Howard,$J.$(2013,$March$25).$For$Libraries,$MOOCs$Bring$Uncertainty$and$Opportunity.$Wired&Campus.$ The$Chronicle$of$Higher$Education.$Retrieved$from$ http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/forflibrariesfmoocsfbringfuncertaintyfandf opportunity/43111$ 118#

2013#


!

Katz,$C.$(2004).$Growing&up&global:&economic&restructuring&and&children’s&everyday&lives.$Minneapolis:$ University$of$Minnesota$Press.$ Kendrick,$C.,$&$Gashurov,$I.$(2013,$November$4).$Libraries$in$the$Time$of$MOOCs.$Educausereview& Online,$48(6).$Retrieved$from$http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/librariesftimefmoocs$ Kolowich,$S.$(2013,$February$21).$How$EdX$Plans$to$Earn,$and$Share,$Revenue$From$Its$Free$Online$ Courses.$The&Chronicle&of&Higher&Education.$Retrieved$from$http://chronicle.com/article/Howf EdXfPlansftofEarnfand/137433/$ Lewin,$T.$(2013,$January$6).$Massive$Open$Online$Courses$Prove$Popular,$if$Not$Lucrative$Yet.$The&New& York&Times.$Retrieved$from$http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/education/massivefopenf onlinefcoursesfprovefpopularfiffnotflucrativefyet.html$ Massis,$B.$E.$(2013).$MOOCs$and$the$library.$New&Library&World,$114(5/6),$267–270.$ doi:10.1108/03074801311326894$ Millington,$P.$(2011,$November$24).$60%$of$Journals$Allow$Immediate$Archiving$of$PeerfReviewed$ Articles$–$but$it$gets$much$much$better….$SHERPA&Services&Blog.$Retrieved$from$ http://romeo.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2011/11/24/$ Open$Yale$Courses$|$Project$Team.$(2012,$February$2).$Retrieved$June$28,$2013,$from$ http://oyc.yale.edu/projectfteam$ Otte,$G.$(2012,$November$12).$Tributaries:$Occassional$affluents$to$the$confluence.$Degrees&of& Openness?$Retrieved$from$http://purelyreactive.commons.gc.cuny.edu/$ Pappano,$L.$(2012a,$November$2).$Massive$Open$Online$Courses$Are$Multiplying$at$a$Rapid$Pace.$The& New&York&Times.$Retrieved$from$ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/massivefopenfonlinefcoursesfaref multiplyingfatfafrapidfpace.html$ Pappano,$L.$(2012b,$November$4).$The$year$of$the$MOOC.$The&New&York&Times,$p.$26(L).$ Parry,$M.$(2012,$November$7).$The$Real$Revolution$Is$Openness,$Clay$Shirky$Tells$Tech$Leaders.$Wired& Campus.$Retrieved$from$http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/thefrealfrevolutionfisf opennessfclayfshirkyftellsftechfleaders$ Pritchard,$S.$M.$(2013).$MOOCs:$An$Opportunity$for$Innovation$and$Research.$Portal :&Libraries&and&the& Academy,$13(2),$127–129.$ $

$

119#

2013#


Appendix F:  Presentation  for  the  Modern  Language   Association  Conference  

120

2013


121

2013

%Ma:hew%K.%Gold% %Emily%Sherwood%% %@mkgold %@emilygwynne% % Modern%Language%Associa2on%Conference% January%2014% Making%Digital%Counterpubics%

From%MOOC%to%POOC:% Plurality,%Par2cipa2on,%and%JustPublics!


122

2013

h"p://justpublics365.gc.cuny.edu7


123

2013

Participatory*


124

2013

h"p://inq13.gc.cuny.edu7


125

2013

Image%Credit:%Edw


126

2013

Image%Credit:%h:p://www.bamboobotanicals.ca/%


127

2013

Image%Credit:%h:p://www.grassrootsmusic.org/%


128

2013

Image%Credit:%h:p://www.ickr.com/photos/sparktography/%


129

2013

h:p://koreanclassmassive.blogspot.com/%


130

2013

Image%Credit:%Tidewate Image%Credit:%h:p://www.winterwell.com/%


131

2013

Image%Credit:%Weblitz%


132

2013

Image%Credit:%Emily%Sherwood%


133

2013

%

%Emily%Sherwood%% %@emilygwynne%

h:p://justpublics365.commons.gc.cuny.edu/%

%Ma:hew%K.%Gold% %@mkgold


Appendix G:  Quarterly  Reports  (Q1,  Q2,  Q3)  

134

2013


JUSTPUBLICS@365 QUARTERLY REPORT !

APRIL 2013

JustPublics@365 reimagining scholarly communication in the digital era for the public good

MEDIACAMP HIGHLIGHT: “Thanks very much for your help with my pitch and your suggestions. I thought you might be interested to know that I ended up publishing my women taxi drivers story in American Prospect magazine.They were excited about the whole series, and so they ran all three of my stories on immigrant workers as a three-part series... “The things I learned at the workshop came in very handy last week. I have written a book about Venezuela and after Hugo Chavez died last week, I found myself besieged by media, including many international and local TV stations, and an interview on MSNBC with Chris Hayes. I used the workshop notes to prepare (although I wished I'd taken more notes about what to wear!) and it helped calm my nerves and make me feel more confident. “So thanks again to [the MediaCamp instructors] and to JustPublics. I'd love to see more workshops like this.” ~ Sujatha Fernandes, Associate Professor, Sociology, The Graduate Center and Queens College, CUNY

Scholarly communication faces new challenges in the digital era. Whereas

the behavior we hope to develop in the academics with whom we work.

previously academics may have had the luxury of speaking to small audiences

Within the first quarter, we added 23 videos to YouTube and Vimeo

of specialized experts, changing

channels, garnered 216 “likes” on

economic models and pressing social problems in the digital era have altered

Facebook, and amassed over 600 Twitter followers.

expectations. JustPublics@365 charts new territory in order to meet the

Create. Connect. Transform.

pressing challenges of this moment by bringing together academics, activists, and journalists in innovative ways to address issues of social inequality. In the first quarter of 2013, JustPublics@365 made great strides toward accomplishing the ambitious goals of this one-year experiment in transforming scholarly communication in higher education. Early successes include a high-profile Summit, an academic conference, two hackathons, an open, online course, and a dozen MediaCamp workshops. Detailed in this report are some key outcomes of the initiative to date. Establishing a Digital Footprint

JustPublics@365 Launch The project launched on January 1st, 2013. We immediately established a digital presence and recognition for the project with a logo and contentrich website. We created accounts on multiple social media platforms and continue to contribute meaningful and site-specific content to each. Through our social media presence, we model

Summits

Building connections between academics, activists, and journalists takes place in person as much as online. In the first quarter, JustPublics@365 held a multi-day summit, Reimagining Scholarly Communication for the 21st Century, to draw together high-profile leaders through unconferences, hackathons, panels, keynote speakers, and roundtables. Participatory, Open, Online Course

POOC not MOOC

JustPublics@365 seeks to reimagine

higher education. One way we are doing so is through our participatory turn (POOC) on the MOOC, or massive, open, online course. Through a collaboration with Centro Library and Archives and East Harlem community activists, enrollees in our course are developing over a developing over a dozen Knowledge Streams that are meant to engage with the community and live beyond the walls of the university.


INVESTOR NEWSLETTER ISSUE N°3! JUSTPUBLICS@365 QUARTERLY REPORT !

FALL 2009 APRIL 2013

THEORIZING THE WEB 2013 #TTW13

As part of JustPublics@365 Summit, Reimagining Scholarly

Communication for the 21st Century, Theorizing the Web 2013 Conference (#TtW13) brought over 300 academics, activists, and media experts to The Graduate Center, CUNY for two days. A simultaneous hackathon, which was covered by The New York Times, examined the socioeconomic patterns of first response to victims of Hurricane Sandy.

Source: #TtW13 Twitter NodeXL SNA Map and Report, 3 March 2013.

Collaboration with J-School

MediaCamp

MediaCamp offers skill-building sessions for intellectuals who want to combine research and digital media for the public good. The workshops are free of charge and are designed to suit the needs of scholars and activists. MediaCamp is a partnership between The Graduate Center and CUNY’s Graduate School of Journalism. Led by journalists with an average of 15 years experience with renowned news organizations like The New York Times, these sessions have already met with great success (see MediaCamp Highlight), reaching 50 academics from 15 prominent institutions, many of whom are internationally recognized, senior faculty from The Graduate Center.

Selected courses include: ✦ Op-Ed Pieces & Pitches: Research for Public Audiences ✦ Analytics & Metrics: Advanced Social Media ✦ Twitter: Social

Media Practicum

Open, Connected, Accessible

Tracing Social Justice Impressions

AltMetrics & Next Steps

At the end of Q1, we have a wealth of data to begin to tracing the “altmetrics” of both newly created streams of knowledge, and to chart how this knowledge might create a

Knowledge Streams

JustPublics@365 Digital Fellows

more just society. While we continue to gather and analyze these data,

work with senior GC faculty, courses, and MediaCamp workshops

public intellectual David Harvey said of putting his life online: “It's changed

to produce Knowledge Streams that

my life quite radically.” With over

extend social justice research to the public, including:

2,000,000 unique visitors to his course site to date, his work is being

✦ Photo

taught in prisons, elite schools, and even the West Bank. Social justice

✦ Data

impressions are being made.

analysis for “CUNY As Lab” with Professors Battle & Kornblum visualizations of international

childhood poverty datasets with Luxembourg Income Study ✦ Forthcoming

podcast series with The Graduate Center faculty about recently published books

Over 350 people live tweeted 1,755 tweets using the conference hashtag: #TtW13. This data visualization illustrates their conversations around health, surveillance, and digital dualism.


JUSTPUBLICS@365 QUARTERLY REPORT !

JULY 2013

JustPublics@365 reimagining scholarly communication in the digital era for the public good

HIGHLIGHTS: “Teaching the course most certainly changed my relationship to technology -it was like dipping my foot into the water that is social media (blogging,Twitter) and realizing that the water was warmer than I might have expected, mostly thanks to the encouragement and support available. I started to think about blogging and Twitter as yet another way of producing knowledge that students of this era -- but especially doctoral students who are the next generation professoriate -- need to be fluent in. . . . I think the most important change in my view has to do with the importance of expanding the academic palette so to speak, of what it takes to be an engaged scholar.” ~ Wendy Luttrell, Professor, Urban Education, Graduate Center, CUNY

JustPublics@365 brings a focus on activism and social justice to larger

graphic novel. All Summit participants received a copy of Jones’ book.

conversations about the future of higher education and knowledge

The evening plenary featured a

production in emerging digital

screening of the documentary film “The

environments. In the second quarter of 2013, the JustPublics@365 project

House I Live In,” followed by a panel discussion with activists Glenn E.

continued to make innovative transformations in key areas.

Martin (Fortune Society) and Gabriel Sayegh (Drug Policy Alliance), journalist

Create. Connect. Transform.

Social Justice Summits JustPublics@365 Summits are highprofile events intended to build connections between academics, activists, and journalists both in-person and online. Two JustPublics@365 Summits in Q2 focused attention on

Alondra Nelson (Columbia University). In May, JustPublics@365 partnered with the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) to extend the impact of their groundbreaking report Blueprint for a Public Health and Safety Approach to

alternatives to criminalization through a series of panel discussions, film

Drug Policy. DPA’s Blueprint was the focus of a lead New York Times editorial,

screenings, plenaries, roundtables and innovative social media engagement.

Treatment” (4/26/13).

In April, JustPublics@365 hosted “Resisting Criminalization through Academic-Media-Activist Partnerships” at the Graduate Center. This Summit brought together leading activists, researchers, and journalists in small roundtable discussions about three crucial issues related to criminalization: 1) stop and frisk, 2) the school to

“The Next Step in Drug

MOOC to POOC

Participatory, Open, Online Course: #InQ13

This quarter, we successfully completed our participatory, open, online course (POOC), led by Graduate Center faculty Caitlin Cahill and Wendy Luttrell (see highlight). The course represented a successful collaboration between

prison pipeline, and 3) public health

academics at the Graduate Center and Centro Library and Archives, along with

alternatives to criminalizing drug use.

East Harlem community activists such

An afternoon panel highlighted the creative use of visual images to tell stories from data, and featured a

Liliana Segura (The Nation), and scholar

presentation by Sabrina Jones, illustrator of Race to Incarcerate, a

as Bilingual Head Start and East Harlem Preservation.


INVESTOR NEWSLETTER ISSUE N°3! JUSTPUBLICS@365 QUARTERLY REPORT !

FALL 2009 JULY 2013

INFOGRAPHIC: LUXEMBOURG INCOME STUDY The Luxembourg Income Study (LIS), a world-renowned data archive and research center housed at the Graduate Center, is dedicated to cross-national analysis of socio-economic factors. On May 20th, 2013, LIS Board President Sir Tony Atkinson, along with economist and New York Times writer Paul Krugman, discussed issues of inequality in front of over 350 attendees, including prominent economists and politicians. Emblematic of its focus on new knowledge streams, JustPublics@365 worked with LIS to produce this infographic especially for the event.

Academic-Journalism Collaboration

MediaCamp

MediaCamp, the product of a unique academic-journalism partnership between the Graduate Center and the CUNY J-School, continues to be a tremendous asset to academics and

have attended, including senior faculty from The Graduate Center, Microsoft Research Center, Columbia University, Yale University, New York University, and the University of Pennsylvania.

activists who want to engage wider publics. The MediaCamp workshops

Open, Connected, Accessible

offer skill-building sessions for a range of intellectuals who seek to

JustPublics@365 expanded its work

combine research and digital media for the public good. Led by journalists with experience at renowned news organizations such as The New York Times, these sessions have already reached over 200 academics and activists. Participants in these workshops have appeared on national news broadcasts, had their writing published in The New York Times, and

Knowledge Streams

with faculty to produce knowledge streams that augment traditional scholarship and extend social justice research to the public. Examples include: ✦ podcasts with faculty about their research; ✦ new scholarly blogs by Dr.Victoria Pitts-Taylor, and Dr. Ruth O’Brien, of the Graduate Center, and Dr. Arlene Stein, Rutgers University.

Digitally Fluent Social Justice

Looking Ahead

We are working on multiple fronts to extend the work begun in the first half of 2013. Our projects include: ✦ transforming the course site for the POOC into a neighborhood-level data repository for academics, activists, and journalists to share projects and ideas in East Harlem; ✦producing a podcast series exploring social-justice research at the Graduate Center; ✦creating a learning community site to help MediaCamp participants maintain connections after their workshops; ✦ producing a video highlighting the successes of MediaCamp; ✦ continuing engagement with community activists in

started their own blogs. Intellectuals

East Harlem around pressing

from over 50 prominent institutions

social justice matters.


JUSTPUBLICS@365 QUARTERLY REPORT !

SEPTEMBER 2013

JustPublics@365 reimagining scholarly communication in the digital era for the public good

HIGHLIGHTS FROM AUGUST MEDIACAMP: “There's a lot of talk among sociologists about ‘public sociology’ but few of us actually know how to practice it. Thanks to MediaCamp, I now have a better sense of how to communicate my research to non-academics and to scholars outside of my fields of expertise. I'm blogging about already-published research, trying out new ideas, and making new contacts via Twitter. I look forward to taking more workshops in the future!” ~ Arlene Stein, Professor, Sociology, Rutgers University, attended multiple workshops

*** "Fantastic workshop!!! I've been struggling with ways to engage with a broader public in my work and I feel much better prepared now. Thank you!" ~ Maura Smale, Library/Info Science/ Anthropology, City Tech, CUNY, attended Op-Eds: Framing Research for a Public Audience

In the third quarter of 2013, JustPublics@365 continued to make strides in transforming scholarly communication. Reaching Wider Publics with Research

American Sociological Association Meeting

(MediaCamp Workshop, August 2013)

The American Sociological Association (ASA) held their annual meeting in New York City in August. Drawing sociologists from around the country, the theme for this year, “Interrogating Inequality,” proved serendipitous. JustPublics@365 offered a series of MediaCamp workshops tailored especially for sociologists who want to reach a wider audience with their work. MediaCamp workshops are made possible by a unique academicjournalism partnership between the Graduate Center and the CUNY J-School. Workshops offer skill-building sessions for academics who want to combine research and digital media in the production of public scholarship that addresses issues of inequality. The day-long series of workshops for sociologists, held on August 8th and 9th were filled with academics from all over the U.S.

Guidance for Early Career Scholars

Digital Sociologists

In conjunction with the ASA meetings, JustPublics@365 hosted a panel discussion and reception for PhD students, postdocs, and junior faculty who wanted to learn more about navigating the job market with an interdisciplinary background that combines the social sciences with experience in Internet and communication technologies (ICTs). Panelists included Dr. Shelia Cotten (Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies, and Media at Michigan State University), Dr. Barry Wellman (i-School at The University of Toronto), Dr. Jenny Davis (James Madison University) and Dr. Jessie Daniels (CUNY Graduate Center and Hunter College). Fostering Civic Engagement in El Barrio

East Harlem Community Forum for City Council Candidates Sparks Controversy

On August 27th, JustPublics@365 partnered with East Harlem Preservation to sponsor a forum for City Council Candidates at the CUNY School of Social Work. The forum, attended by six of the seven candidates for Council for District 8, became heated when the discussion turned to the issue of gentrification. According to a report in The New York Daily News, several people attending accused incumbent and frontrunner Melissa MarkViverito of being “too close” to real estate developers.


JUSTPUBLICS@365 QUARTERLY REPORT !

SEPTEMBER 2013

Jessie Daniels was invited to write for the London School of Economics Impact of Social Sciences Blog. Her piece, “From Tweet to Blog to Peer-Reviewed Article: How to be a Scholar Now,” describes one of the ways scholarship is changing in the digital era. Daniels took a live Tweet at a conference, used it to formulate a post at her blog Racism Review, then developed a series of blog posts, and eventually reworked it into a peer-reviewed journal article that was published in New Media & Society (15, 5: 695-719). Her post at the LSE Impact Blog has garnered over 5, 250 unique visitors.

Public History

Activist East Harlem Walking Tour

(Marina Ortiz and Kathy Benson)

In early September, several members of the JustPublics@365 team participated in a walking tour of East Harlem curated by The Museum of the City of New York and East Harlem Preservation. The tour highlighted landmarks that illustrated the neighborhood’s rich history of activism, including several murals and the church occupied by the Young Lords during the civil rights movement. We at JustPublics@365 are talking with representatives from the Museum of the City of New York and East Harlem Preservation about developing a digital version of the tour.

Open, Connected, Accessible

Measuring Scholarly Impact

Unlike the books, monographs, chapters and peer-reviewed journal articles characteristic of 20th century knowledge production, the affordances of digital technologies make it possible to create knowledge streams, open to wider audiences and more connected to social justice.

The way we measure scholarly impact is changing. For many decades, scholars relied on the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) to track the number of peerreviewed citations of their own journal articles.

Knowledge Streams

Throughout Q3, we continued work on the following knowledge streams: ✦! Interviewing faculty for a podcast series exploring research about inequality at the Graduate Center; ✦! Developing content for a monthly, online topic series that deepens and extends the work of the Summits; ✦! Creating a ‘Toolkit’ for academics who want to use digital media to engage with wider audiences and connect to social justice efforts. The Toolkit will be released as an e-book available to download for free.

Altmetrics & Social Justice

The Internet has made new forms of measuring scholarly impact possible. Now, in addition to citations in journals, scholars can demonstrate influence such as the number of blog visitors, podcast and video downloads. Yet, how do scholars measure their influence in the wider world? On September 9th, everyone on the JP365 team worked together exploring ideas about what “transformational metrics” might be. In Q4, we will continue to explore ways to measure scholarly influence on social change.


JUSTPUBLICS@365 QUARTERLY REPORT ! Librarians: Sherpas of the Information Age

Polly Thistlethwaite, Chief Librarian, Joins JustPublics@365 Chief Librarian Polly Thistlethwaite has served as a consultant on issues of open access to scholarly communication since the beginning of JustPublics@365, and on July 1, she officially joined as co-PI. Thistlethwaite joined the Graduate Center’s library faculty in 2002 as Associate Librarian for Public Services. Before that, she served in libraries at Colorado State University, Hunter College, New York University, and Yale University. She has also held positions with CUNY Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies (CLAGS), the Lesbian Herstory Archives, and several local and national library organizations. Connecting people to potentially life-saving information is central to Thistlethwaite’s work. She connects her activist past to her work as a librarian in this this way: “As a member of ACTUP and a junior librarian in the mid-to- late 1980s, I spent a lot of time sneaking AIDS activists into research libraries to get them the scholarship and data they needed. Although today, more of the medical literature is available to anyone now, the majority of academic work still remains locked

behind pay walls. This is a travesty. Scholarship should be openly available to any reader or researcher anywhere.  Open access scholarship is essential to effective democratic governance and to affect meaningful global change.” How to make scholarly communication available to a wider audience has been central to the JustPublics@365 project, and early on we turned to the library for guidance on the nuances of this issue. Thistlethwaite finds JustPublics@365 offers the library a venue to reach faculty for deeper conversations about open access. She says, “It's a great project. Every library should have a JustPublics@365 project to work with. It's a natural collaboration. Of course we're working together.”

SEPTEMBER 2013

HIGHLIGHTS FROM AUGUST MEDIACAMP: "Great workshop! Informative, great for those with little experience.Would recommend to other grad students." ~ Ronald Berkowsky, PhD Student in Sociology at University of Alabama at Birmingham, attended Op-Eds: Framing Research for a Public Audience

*** "This was incredibly educational.Thank you so much!" ~ Elizabeth Wrigley-Field, PhD Candidate in Sociology at University of WisconsinMadison, attended Being Interviewed on Camera

*** Moving Up, Stepping Aside

Chase F. Robinson Named Interim President On July 1, Chase F. Robinson became Interim President of the Graduate Center, after serving as Provost since 2008. The Graduate Center’s gain is our loss, as Robinson steps aside as co-PI on JustPublics@365 given the demands of his new role.

"I think this was great. Good attention to the main qualities/goals: clear, timely, interesting and timely, and the call to the recently published author was so helpful."  ~ Amy Steinbugler, Assistant Professor, Sociology at Dickinson College, attended  Op-Eds: Framing Research for a Public Audience 


1 2 3

Appendix H:  Alphabetical  List  of  Contributors  for  2013  

During 2013,  thousands  of  people  came  into  contact  with  JustPublics@365  and  contributed  to  its  success  in   various  ways.  This  is  a  necessarily  partial  list  of  some  of  the  people  who  contributed  to  this  project  during  the   start-­‐up  phase,  and  it  is  with  deepest  gratitude  that  we  acknowledge  them  here,  and  offer  our  sincere   apologies  to  anyone  we  may  have  inadvertently  left  out.   Konrad  Aderer  

Joan Greenbaum  

Frances Fox  Piven  

Steph M.  Anderson  

Amanda Hickman  

Rita Prats    

Juan Battle  

Sabrina Jones  

Yasmin Ramirez  

Christopher Bramfitt  

Sandeep Junnarkar  

PJ Rey  

John Boy  

Nathan Jurgenson  

Luis Reyes  

danah boyd    

Fred Kaufman  

Morgane Richardson  

Eric Cadora  

Jamilah King  

Chase F.  Robinson  

Caitlin Cahill  

Heidi Knoblauch  

gabriel sayegh  

Margaret Chin  

Les Larue  

Liliana Segura  

Jessie Daniels  

Fiona Lee  

Emily Sherwood  

Ashley Dawson  

Harry Levine  

Eli Silverman  

Jennifer Dean  

Wendy Luttrell  

Michael B.  Smith  

Bronwyn Dobchuck-­‐Land  

Amanda Matles  

Shawnta Smith  

Ernie Drucker  

Edwin Mayorga  

John Smock  

Amy Dunkin  

Glenn E.  Martin  

Alyson Spurgas  

Jennifer Estevez  

Evan M isshula  

Deb S tead  

Michael Fabricant  

Leith M ullings  

Joseph Straus  

Susan Farkas  

Scott Myln  

Polly Thistlethwaite  

Michelle Fine  

Wilneida Negrón  

Rebecca Tiger  

William Gallo  

Alondra Nelson  

Almudena Toral  

Matthew K.  Gold  

Laura Noren  

Rita Prats    

Janet Gornick  

Kaitlyn O’Hagan  

Judith Watson  

Jen Jack  Gieseking  

Marina Ortiz  

Robert West  

Karen Gregory  

Pedro Pedraza  

Kai Wright  

142

2013


The work  of  JustPublics@365  to   create  innovative  forms  of  scholarly   knowledge,  connect  scholars  and   activists  through  digital  media,  and   to  transform  the  world  continues.    

Engaging Academics and Reimagining Scholarly Communication for the Public Good  

A report on the 2013 activities of JustPublics@365, a project of the Ford Foundation, on reimagining scholarly communication in the 21st cen...

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you