Archival Research & Scope

The textual records room at Archives II, College Park, MD--my home-away-from-home for 3 days last week (image from)

On my last day at the Archives, I was really sorry to leave. I had a great time there--which I suppose means I'm doing the right thing with my life. I loved seeing the documents that I'd read about elsewhere, like the very first annual report to Congress from 1948. I loved finally finding the numbers I needed to fill in the gaps on my data tables (even though that sounds painfully nerdy...). The staff were helpful & the other researchers were friendly (my tiny Samsung netbook was a great icebreaker). I came away with 25,000+ words in 63 pages of notes, and a better understanding of what the archives have on the Fulbright Program.

The main thing I got out of this trip was a reminder about the importance of scope. When I left that last day, I thought "Oh, I forgot to look at that...I missed out on that...I wish I had more time!" But then it occurred to me that the National Archives are huge. It's simply not possible to compile a 100% comprehensive study of a 65-year old programme in 3 years of archival research, much less 3 days. I realised that for me, for now, the goal is not to do it all, but to do enough (and to do it well, too, of course). Phil Taylor made me think that the point of the PhD was to become the world's greatest expert on your topic, but the more I interact with people who have PhDs, the more I realise that it's not about being an expert at all. Someday you might become the world's greatest expert on your topic (especially if it's obscure enough. Case in point: my University of Washington Central Asian Studies professor, Dr. Scott Radnitz, a former Fulbrighter to Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. Brilliant guy, but would he have become an assistant professor by age 30 if he had specialised in Germany or France instead of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan?) but research interests and career aspirations can change, just like they do when you're a kid dreaming of what you want to be when you grow up.

The point of the PhD is not to do an exhaustive, expert-level study--it's to do an original piece of research that merits a PhD. But what, exactly, merits a PhD? I've had a look at some of the successful dissertations in our research room, and it really does vary--there are little concise ones and massive tomes, historical ones and contemporary ones, interview-filled qualitative approaches and number-crunching quantitative approaches. The only general conclusion I could make from them is that most are specialised, just like Dr. Radnitz above. They focus on a single case study, or just one narrow aspect of a larger phenomenon. I'm starting to realise that these successful students didn't specialise just to be obscure and original--they did it because they had to narrow their topic down to fit the scope of a PhD project.

On Wednesday we had an open day, and ICS was filled with prospective students and their parents. Some of the current MA students came into the PhD room to chat with us about their interest in doing a PhD here in the future. One asked me "how do you know if your topic is right for a PhD?" The 2 main bits of advice I gave to him: 1) It has to be something that interests you enough to keep you engaged for 3+ years, and 2) It needs to have the right scope. The scope bit is the part that I'm still working on, a year and a half into it.

Selecting future leaders

After re-reading Alice Stone Ilchman's chapter in America's Dialogue with the World, I've started reading her book on competitive scholarships, The Lucky Few and the Worthy Many. Just a quick read of the introduction has given me plenty to think about in terms of my research...

Firstly, they mention something that I've been struggling with throughout the process--programme evaluation. I 'm starting to feel like my research question is simply "What does the Fulbright Program do?" because after a year and a half of reading, I still don't know. Evaluations undertaken by the Advisory Commission always say that it's effective, that it does so much for international goodwill and that 99% of students were satisfied with their experience. But of course they'd be 'satisfied'--it's a year abroad with free tuition and living expenses. Who's going to say it was a bad experience? More to the point, how do you quantify concepts like "international goodwill" and "mutual understanding"? This quote really spoke to some of the issues I've been dealing with: "The more lofty and abstract the mission (e.g. increasing international understanding), the more difficult it is to evaluate what was accomplished by the recipients or the program in general." (Ilchman, Ilchman and Tolar, 2004, p. 10)

Secondly, they briefly mentioned Bourdieu's reproduction of elites and Harriet Zuckerman's "accumulation of advantage"--both centered around the premise that those who win awards go on to win more. I've looked up Zuckerman now--her research was on Nobel-laureate scientists (she found that they had a history of winning awards). In terms of my own research, I find it so interesting that many Fulbright grantees already have had scholarships before--and some even studied abroad on a scholarship before. It needs supporting evidence, but after reading about so many alums who went on multiple Fulbrights (first as students and later as professors) I think that accumulation of advantage must be taking place here.

Thirdly, there's a lot of discussion about how to identify future leaders. One of the public diplomacy ideas underpinning the programme is the multiplier effect--the prediction that exchange participants will go on to be influential elites in their societies. Their internationalist values, gained during the exchange experience, will be spread to others in their home nations. It's a solid idea, but how do they recognise a future leader in the making? What qualities or characteristics set these candidates apart from the unsuccessful applicants? And, in terms of the programme's ultimate success, how predictable are these markers of future leadership?

In the interest of reflexivity, it's worth mentioning that I never applied for a Fulbright or any other type of competitive scholarship that the authors studied. There are several reasons why: I was unaware of many of the awards, I didn't know what my plans were, and I was put off by the complicated selection process (applications, letters of recommendation, interviews, visa applications, fees, etc.). I feared going through all of that work and spending all of that money, only to get rejected. It had happened to me when I applied to Ivy League universities in high school, wasting about $70 on each application fee and asking my teachers for recommendation letters, only to get rejected like most of the students who apply to the Ivies (Princeton, my top choice, accepted only 9% that year--but 40% of legacy student applicants were accepted--again, Bourdieu's reproduction of elites...). My interviews seemed to go well, I had the highest SAT score in my school, 8 AP subjects, glowing recommendations--they told me I had a chance and I believed them. But looking back, I have to wonder (cynically) if they tell everybody that they have a chance, and they make $70 off of each of the thousands of hopeful applicants.

Enough of my bitterness about the Ivies. Back to Fulbright: As they always have more applicants than spaces, how do they choose from among the 'worthy many'? What factors come into the selection process? They are self-selected to begin with, and then the pool is narrowed down by application forms, interviews, panel reviews, etc. Each of these stages in the process is done by different actors--academic advisors at the institutions themselves (both sending and receiving), the IIE, regional selection panels, and finally the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board. How do they coordinate this lengthy, complex process? Is there oversight involved at different stages, or do they just run with decisions made by previous actors? And, a question that might link it all together: how does the selection process influence outcomes?

Phil Taylor Conference & New Year Updates

Now that the holidays are over and I'm back in the office, it's time for a few updates. First off, the Phil Taylor conference was brilliant. It was such an amazing chance to meet all of these academic stars--and since we'd been e-mailing each other since August, it felt like I already knew them. We all had a mutual friend in Phil, too, which was a great ice breaker and made it such a unique conference.

On the first day, I got to ICS early to help set up and coordinate the MA student volunteers. When speakers started arriving, it was so great to meet them and put a face to the name--nearly everyone greeted me with "Oh, you're Molly!" because I'd been e-mailing them for months. Some, like Kate Utting and Paul Moorcraft, were really friendly and it felt like we'd known each other for ages. Some, like Nick Cull, were keen on chatting about public diplomacy and gave me some great tips for my research. With others, like Kate Adie, I was more of an audience member and didn't get a chance to chat. But I really enjoyed meeting everyone, and the conference was a fantastic experience.

The Student's Appraisal Panel

with Cristina Archetti and Nick Cull

...and Jacob Udo-Udo Jacob and Elina Bardach-Yalov

Briefing the MA student volunteers in the morning

Group shot of the conference speakers and attendees

Michael Nelson, former general manager of Reuters, emailed me the day after the conference to say that we'd done a great job and it was "a textbook example of how a conference should be run." Brilliant!

Kate Utting warned me that after the conference there would be a sense of anti-climax, of emptiness. She was right--my inbox suddenly went quiet, and I had nothing to do but marking (and that kept me busy until about 12 hrs before my flight to the States for Christmas). I've got plenty of other things to do this term (like my actual PhD research), but part of me will miss the hectic planning and craziness that filled up my inbox last term.

Speaking of my actual PhD research, I've been doing it! Over the break, I went to the National Archives for the very first time. I got my official researcher ID card and sat with a box and took notes for several hours. It was surprisingly fun--I think I must be more of a historian than I'd thought, because there was something really cool about getting my hands on the original documents. They were only from the 1980's and not even yellowing yet, but if it's in the National Archives, it must give me some historian cred.

I didn't find anything world-changing in the reports, but I did find some of the student numbers and funding data that I'd really needed, as well as some useful quotes from FSB chairs and alumni. They also used to print lists with the year that each binational commission was founded, and that was really useful, too--one of those simple little questions that I hadn't been able to answer until now. Having gone through one box in about 5 hours was useful, too--it gave me an idea of the scope of the records, how much fits into a box, and some sense of how much writing I can do until my hand feels like it's going to fall off (22 5X8 notecards).

My trip back to the States was great--we spent a lot of quality time with my family, did some sightseeing, and I had all of my favorite American foods (root beer, proper burgers, Cracker Barrel, as well as US versions of Chinese and Mexican). Richard and I went to NYC for his birthday and it was fantastic. I'd only been once before, briefly when I was visiting Columbia University as an applicant. This time we did all of the touristy things that neither of us had ever done--going to the top of the Empire State Building, taking the ferry to the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, having a hot dog from a vendor and eating it in Central Park, seeing the Christmas tree at Rockefeller Center.

When I'm abroad, I always run into people saying that they've been to NYC and they love America based on that experience. I always thought that was odd, because I thought NYC was just like any other big city--very internationalised, like London or Paris or Tokyo. But now, having done the touristy bits of NYC, I get it. It really is a cool place, and it does have its own distinct character (just like London and Paris and Tokyo do...). I can see why it would make someone like the States (even though I still prefer Seattle...just like I prefer Liverpool over London).

Review of last year's New Years Resolutions
10. I will get in to the office no later than 10 am

I've been relatively good about this--mainly because I just had too much to do and needed to get in by 9 or 10 to get it all done.
9. I will be open to more opportunities for CV-building--teaching, conferences, etc.

I definitely did this...a little too much. This year's resolution will be "Learn to say 'no' to CV-building opportunities and focus on the PhD!"
8. I won't let myself get distracted by non-research-related websites during office hours (this means you, Facebook...)

Again, I've been pretty good about this. If anything, I need to limit the amount of time I spend checking and re-checking my e-mail throughout the day. Answering conference-related and placement-related e-mails can really take up an entire workday.
7. I will actually read the library books stacked on my desk, instead of skimming them and leaving them in a pile until they're due back...

Good progress--although overall, I need to spend more time reading.
6. And on a related note, I'll be a better library patron and only check out what I intend to read in a week's time (3-4 books a week?)

I've been good about this, but really haven't spent enough time in the library lately--will resolve to make it a regular habit
5. I will start bringing lunch to work more often, as it cuts down on the lunch break length and gives me a chance to hang out with other PhDs & staff

Ever since Lent (when I gave up cafe lunches and coffees), I've been really good, bringing my lunch in 3 or more times a week. Unfortunately, it's not a social occasion--I've been eating at my desk and using the break to catch up on news.
4. I will write longer, better essays for my supervisor

Since I haven't written anything for Robin since the upgrade (yikes), I really need to make this resolution again.
3. I will pass my upgrade this summer!

Check!
2. I will update this blog at least once a week, because it helps me stay on track & refocus my thoughts

Didn't happen, but will make this resolution again...
1. Finally, I resolve to enjoy the process and treat my PhD like the amazing opportunity it is.

Yes, I absolutely loved the process this year. I loved the reading, writing, conferences, teaching, etc. It was all brilliant, and the past term has really convinced me that I'm doing the right thing. Even when I'm struggling with my research (like now), I still love it.

2012 Research Resolutions

10. I will focus on my PhD research, because first and foremost, I'm supposed to be a PhD student. Not an events planner, not an administrator, not a teacher...

9. I will learn to delegate tasks and say 'no' occasionally (remembering that the one thing I can't delegate is my PhD research)

8. Every day, I carve out at least an hour to talk to my family back home. This year, I'm going to carve out at least 2 hours of reading each day. I seriously haven't been reading enough to call myself an academic.

7. Keep bringing lunch to work, but try to eat away from the desk more often

6. Get a section written every couple of months

5. Write the 75,000 word first draft and submit it to Robin in December.

4. Update the blog every couple of weeks with something

3. Don't let wedding planning get in the way of the PhD. It's just one day.

2. But don't let the PhD get in the way of enjoying your wedding and honeymoon--block out the month of September in your calendar and plan work accordingly.

1. Keep on enjoying the process and living the dream!

Thanksgiving Abroad

Yesterday was my fifth Thanksgiving in England. Each year, I've celebrated it differently, so I'm not sure what this says about my culture mediation efforts...

2007--Went to London for the day, did some sightseeing (first trip to the British Museum) and some Christmas shopping. When I got back to Bath, I went to an American friend's house in the evening and had pumpkin pie and Carlsberg with a mixed international group (mostly Germany and Wales).

2008--First Thanksgiving in Leeds. After lecture, my classmates and I went to the Library pub as usual, then my Venezuelan friend and I went out for pizza at La Besi next door.

2009--Went to an American friend's place for dinner. I brought my mom's cornbread stuffing, a pumpkin pie and a pecan pie. Her French housemate loved the pecan pie and he even asked me for the recipe.

2010--Hosted my first Thanksgiving for a mixed international group of friends. I stuck to traditional American dishes (including two Paula Deen recipes-- Ol No. 7 yams and green bean casserole), although we did serve my favourite real ale (Brains). They loved it--one of my English friends asked a lot of questions about the history of Thanksgiving and what we traditionally do.

2011--Quiet dinner at home for just the two of us, although I did make a spare pecan pie and bring it into the office.

One of the questions I ask the Fulbright students is how the chose to celebrate (or not celebrate) Thanksgiving. It seems pretty innocuous, but their answers really do reveal a great deal about culture learning & mediation. Both Thanksgiving and Bonfire Night come relatively soon after the American students have arrived in the UK, so they present two early opportunities to engage in cultural mediation. If they go to a bonfire or fireworks display, do they go with host nationals or other internationals? If they have a Thanksgiving dinner, do they invite other Americans or a mixed international group? Do they make an effort to teach others about Thanksgiving, and to learn about Guy Fawkes Day? The way they choose to celebrate these holidays can tell us quite a bit about their overall attitudes towards culture learning.

Critical Theory

Once again, I'm struggling with theory--but this time, I actually have to teach it.

Last week was a general overview of theory--what theories communications scholars use, and how & why they use them. My seminars went surprisingly well, and it gave me a chance to think more about my own issues with theory.

This week, we got down to the side of theory that I really don't like: critical theory. Now, my understanding is that critical theorists one pursuit in life is to criticise everything. They question everything, 'challenge the mainstream' as the lecturer put it. I can respect that, up to a point, but I hate it when people argue for the sake of it. What's the point? Why be so miserable about everything?

Here's an example from the lecture: celebrity relief work, with the case study of the "Everybody Hurts" single for Haitian earthquake relief. Zizek is against this type of activity, because it perpetuates the system of inequality--the 'haves' giving to the 'have-nots' just reinforces the fact that the 'haves' have it to give.

Ok, so I understand his point. The system is bad. But my beef with this view is simply this: what would he have us do instead? He offers no alternative suggestions. He's just criticising charity, but I don't seem him doing anything to help (apologies if he actually does perform any aid work that I haven't read about...).

Why do I support the celebrity relief work phenomenon?

Because it actually does work.

Comic Relief's accomplishments: http://www.comicrelief.com/how-we-help/the-difference-we-have-made

The case of Hurricane Katrina: http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/educational/teachable_moments/katrina_celebrities.cfm

Because it makes people pay attention--something that mainstream journalism often fails to accomplish on its own.

Because it's better to do something--even something small--than to just sit back and criticise others for not doing enough.

Academic research on celeb relief:

Goodman and Barnes. 2011. "Star/poverty space: the making of the ‘development celebrity’ " Celebrity Studies 2(1), pp. 69-85.

Samman, McAuliffe, and MacLachlan. 2009. "The role of celebrity in endorsing poverty reduction through international aid." International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 14, pp. 137-148.

Update

For the past couple of months I've been juggling a lot of different things, and as something's gotta give...it's been this blog.

What's been on my plate?

~Teaching: leading seminars for 80 first-year students. I really do love it--they're a great group, most are really switched on & eager.

~Placements: I've taken on an admin job this year where I help arrange work experience places for ICS's Television Production students. I also take care of the paperwork for the other programmes (they arrange their own placements). It's turned out to be pretty demanding, but I like it. There's something very cool about calling up people at well-known media companies like the BBC (even if they're just admin like me...)

~Conference planning: the conference in memory of Phil Taylor is coming up very quickly, so most days I'm chasing something up on it. It's great to see the enthusiasm people have for Phil, though, so I really enjoy that work, too.

~Conference attending? I'm putting together an abstract for a conference and it's due this Friday), so fingers crossed--I might have my first conference presentation in May! Very exciting stuff...

~House-hunting: We might be moving next month before Christmas (right about the time that the Phil Taylor conference is...). Richard's doing all of the actual work with the various realtors/surveyors/mortgage lenders, but it's another thing to think about. And once we've moved in, there's a lot of work to be done--looking forward to painting!

~Wedding planning: Ten months to go, but we've already got ceremony & reception venues, the photographers & the dress. So efficient!

~Christmas shopping: finished in October. Another amazing feat.

And last but certainly not least: my PhD research.

Pros: I passed the upgrade and was granted ethical approval, and I presented my work to the first-year PhD students (first time presenting it--so exciting!)

Cons: I'm still sorting out access to interviewees for the fieldwork that should be taking place right now...But it's coming along, and I'm very grateful for the ones that I do have.

Looking over that list, it's amazing that I've been able to keep it together...Will post more research-related content in the future, time permitting!

Third Places

Sunset view from Ha'penny Bridge, Dublin

My brief stint as a tour guide was a success--Carly & Matt loved Leeds, thanks to a nice mix of sightseeing, shopping and pub crawls. We had a great time in Dublin, too. I instantly felt at home there, just like I'd felt the first time I came to the UK. As Carly put it, Ireland & Britain have all of the great qualities of Europe but without the language barrier.

Seeing my new home through their eyes really made me appreciate it more (no surprise there--it's always the case in exchange lit). They loved the pub culture, and it got me thinking about "third places". I'd read a piece a few years ago about Starbucks' successful strategy of creating a third place--a place outside of work or home. It's a public place that's intimate enough to hold a private conversation in, which is really a pretty interesting feature. When we went to pubs in Ireland, I realised that the pub is the third place in both Irish and British culture. Coffee chains have become more popular in recent years, but they close at 5-7pm and can't compete with a pub. During the Enlightenment era, coffee house culture was huge in London, but even then, I'm sure they never really surpassed the popularity of the pub (particularly in the working class). It also got me thinking about "third places" in the rest of the world. In France, it might be the cafe; in Italy, the 'fare un giro' habit of walking around the neighborhood after dinner and chatting with friends; in some boroughs of NYC, it's the act of sitting on the stoop with neighbors on warm nights, creating a 'street party' atmosphere.

With regards to my research, the idea of 'third places' has some interesting implications for exchange students. Culture learning might be measured in part by the extent to which international students discover local third places (and use them on a regular basis). If a student goes abroad and fails to engage with locals in a "third place" outside of work or home, I think they're missing out on an important part of culture learning...