Engaging Academics and Reimagining Scholarly Communication for the Public Good by JustPublics@365

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.

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

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).

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).

“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).

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.

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

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.

2013

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

Media-‐Academic-‐Activist Events (Summits)

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

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

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

AltMetrics Panel

OccupyData Hackathon

Poverty, YouTube, and Representation

Hands-‐on Workshops (9)

Data Stories at James Gallery

Total

546

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

Roundtable: Public Health

Visualizing Big Data

The House I Live In Screening

The House I Live In Panel

Total

285

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

Harm Reduction Pillar: Beyond Seat Belts and Syringe Exchange

Public Safety Pillar: Improving Public Safety Through Collaboration Across Sectors

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

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)

Number of classes livestreamed

Number of East Harlem Community Partners

Number of people required to produce the POOC

Number of GC students enrolled

Number of Guest Speakers

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

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.

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

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

Total number of podcast plays

601

Ratings on iTunes

5/5

Videos Number of videos

Total number of plays

3,504

Total number of loads

96,000

Total number of likes

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

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.

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/).

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.

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)

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)

“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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

2013

1 2 3

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

January: 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

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

Smartphones

u

Framing Research for Public

Smartphones

Audiences

5/31, Analytics and Metrics:

June:

u

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

u

6/13, Smart Photos with Smartphones

u

7/17, Big Media: Being Interviewed on Camera

u

General Audience 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

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

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!”

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

“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.”

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.”

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!”

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. “

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

“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

“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."

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

“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

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.”

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

“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

“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.”

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

“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

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

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.”

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.

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!”

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

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!

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

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.”

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

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.”

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

“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.”

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”

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”

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

“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.

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]”

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

“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.”

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.”

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

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.”

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

“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.”

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!”

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

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”

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.

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!publishersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;!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!nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s!largest!public!urban!university.!The!Graduate!Center!is!CUNYâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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'

20'

40'

60'

80'

100'

120'

140'

11'

15'

34'

76'

Total'OA''

10'

New'OA' (permanent)'

14'

19'

New'OA' (temporary)'

11'

23'

47'

Already'OA''

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

2013#

14'

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.ďŹ&#x201A;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.