Getting to Know Our AAG

Patricia Erhkamp introduces facts about AAG, its headquarters and council in a special video

Photo of Patricia Ehrkamp

Like many of you, my initial encounter with the AAG was through attending an Annual Meeting. Others first learn about the AAG through one of our nine regional division meetings or the set of journals that AAG publishes. It is often only after being a member for a while that we pay more attention to what the AAG is and does on a regular basis, and how it is run. This is why I want to use this column to talk a bit about governance, introduce you to the AAG’s wonderful staff, and to the association’s new headquarters in Washington, DC.

My recent visit to the AAG’s headquarters for the September AAG Council meeting reminded me how important it is for members to know what we do. AAG is governed by the AAG Council, whose members are elected to serve three-year terms. There are six national councilors and nine regional councilors, and membership on the board is staggered to make sure that not everyone rotates off at the same time. One student councilor and one international councilor round out the board. The AAG’s Executive Director, Gary Langham, serves ex officio as a non-voting member of the Council, and AAG Council activities are supported by AAG staff.

On the occasion of AAG Council’s first in-person meeting of the 2024/25 academic year I thought I’d take you behind the scenes to let you see who your elected council members are. These include, of course, our Executive Committee, which consists of Vice President Bill Moseley, immediate Past President Rebecca Lave, secretary Dydia DeLyser, treasurer Antoinette WinklerPrins and myself as president. The Executive Committee reviews and refines agendas, suggests policy, and oversees the work of standing committees and task forces.

AAG Council meets four times a year. The September meeting is the first of two in-person meetings; the second of these meetings takes place in conjunction with the Annual Meeting of the AAG. We do meet virtually two more times during the year because our tasks can no longer be accomplished in just two annual meetings. For a recent perspective on AAG governance and Council meetings, see this article by past President Emily Yeh.

It was exciting for Council to meet for the first time in the AAG’s new headquarters at 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue. The AAG’s move to this recently renovated building is part of our commitment to reducing GHG emissions. In addition to downsizing significantly from over 7,200 square feet to a space that is 3,900 square feet, the building is accessible and also LEED Gold certified, in contrast to the Meridian Place which was built in 1890 and in need of updates. Between divesting all of our assets from fossil fuel industries and moving into the new headquarters, AAG is committed to continue reducing emissions from our operations. Staff continue to contribute to these goals by using public transportation and through hybrid work arrangements. While we still have a ways to go and must work on further reducing our climate impacts, this progress is no small feat.

AAG’s Emily Frisan captured some of the highlights of the September Council meeting in a brief video I hope you’ll watch. If you are ever in DC, we invite you to drop by to visit the headquarters of your AAG.


Please note: The ideas expressed in the AAG President’s column are not necessarily the views of the AAG as a whole. This column is traditionally a space in which the president may talk about their views or focus during their tenure as president of AAG, or spotlight their areas of professional work. Please feel free to email the president directly at P.Ehrkamp [at] uky [at] edu to enable a constructive discussion.

    Share

A Global Gathering Place

Colorful comment bubble shapes containing a word in different languages

Photo of Patricia Ehrkamp

As I am finalizing this column, the 35th International Geographical Congress (IGC) draws to a close in Dublin, Ireland. Organized by the International Geographical Union (IGU) and the Geographical Society of Ireland (GSI), the Congress met under the theme “Celebrating a World of Difference” and brought together over 3,000 delegates. It was a delight to see so many geographers from around the world engaging in the exchange of knowledge, collaborating across borders and language barriers, and building new networks and friendships along the way. A number of plenaries highlighted the expertise of ‘Voices from the Global South,’ for example two sessions on climate change. These sessions also made clear that so many current and pressing issues in the world—such as climate change, food security, and geopolitics—do not stop at national borders and cannot be understood in isolation.

This wonderful global and collaborative spirit stands in stark contrast to expressions of nationalism, boundary-making, and xenophobia that characterize the presidential election campaign in the United States. Nationalism, populism, and anti-immigrant rhetoric are on full display—with at least on one side of the political spectrum going as far as calling for mass deportations. These are, of course, well-known tropes of electoral politics, and they have been part and parcel of U.S. immigration policy for decades. But I will never get used to the ways that such anti-immigrant rhetoric and hostility unnecessarily instill discomfort or even fear in those of us who hail from parts of the world outside the U.S. Geographic research has long addressed these topics, including, for example, making rising ethnonationalism the theme of the 2022 presidential plenary.

Beyond our scholarship on these issues, however, I watch the election campaign and TV ads with deep concern for how this rhetoric affects the numerous international students in our undergraduate and graduate programs, and I wonder how our international colleagues feel about them. Many of our AAG members are immigrant faculty members and practitioners, as well as international students, and research shows that racism, discrimination, and anti-immigrant politics create stress and anxiety and adversely affect the health and mental health of immigrants and minoritized populations.

So, I want to take this opportunity to emphasize that the AAG’s broader commitments to inclusivity comprise a deep commitment to internationalism in education, research, and geographic practice, and that the broader production and exchange of knowledge and insights across national borders benefit all of us. As AAG Past President Eric Sheppard noted in 2013, efforts to change our name to American Association of Geographers were prompted by the realization that “the AAG has become far more than a community of American geographers. Many of our members, even among those working in the United States, are not (only) American citizens. Many more attend our annual meetings from outside the United States as our national meetings have become the gathering place for geographers from across the world.”

These trends continue. Although our membership declined during and in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic, our international membership (as geographers with an address outside of the United States) has remained at about 25 percent. The 2022 Membership Report shows that the AAG had 9,347 members at the end of 2022, which included 2,554 international members that represented over 100 countries.

There is other encouraging news: Following three years of canceled or virtual conferences between 2020 and 2022, in the past two years, our annual meetings have again become global gathering places for geographers. In Denver (2023), 26.5% of our attendees came from outside the United States, representing 82 countries. Honolulu similarly attracted international attendees from 78 countries, accounting for 30.6% of our overall attendees. Hawai’i’s (relative) geographic proximity to Asia aided in bringing more colleagues from that region to this most recent conference, and I am so grateful that our organization was able to afford opportunities for 64 Indigenous students and scholars from the Pacific Ocean basin region to attend this Annual Meeting free of charge as part of our commitments to enhancing global inclusivity.

In many other ways, our lives have been globally connected, which is also what we teach in our introductory geography classes. One way of fostering such connections is through education abroad. Study abroad participation has become an important aspect of how universities and colleges are ranked, and they advertise such opportunities as they seek to recruit talented undergraduate students. Lauded as ‘high impact’ learning experiences for undergraduate students, 94 percent of United States colleges and universities offer and encourage students to participate in study abroad opportunities according to the spring 2024 Institute of International Education Snapshot. For our students, studying abroad offers exciting and important opportunities of gaining a deeper understanding of the world, through first-person experiences with different cultures, knowledges, and approaches. Of course, faculty exchanges—for example through Fulbright programs—do similarly important work.

As we continue to build global consciousness and understanding, the AAG remains committed to being a gathering place for all geographers.”

The number of international students coming to the United States has been growing, and international faculty are contributing much to growing diversity in the U.S. academy and in our home departments. But there are challenges as well. In addition to the hostile political climate I already mentioned, international faculty and students may also struggle with visa issues, have to overcome language hurdles, and may find themselves encountering microaggressions and unspoken barriers. In response to some of these challenges, AAG has been supporting the Golden Compass initiative that seeks to foster equity and inclusion for international women faculty in geography and geospatial science. This initiative, which originally focused on mentoring a relatively small group of scholars, has now received significant funding from the National Science Foundation under the new project name Geospatial sciences Alliance for International women faculty Advancement (GAIA) to scale up and shift focus toward data collection, training, and technical assistance that will help institutions transform their approach to supporting international women scholars. Led by Dr. Jieun Lee of the University of Northern Colorado, this partnership is a collaboration among UNC, AAG, the University Consortium for Geographic Information Science, and the College of Staten Island.

Universities in the U.S. keep recruiting international students—in part because tuition dollars matter in the neoliberalized world of higher education. But international students bring so much more: they enrich our classrooms and learning in geography programs with their experiences and insights! In our seminars and research endeavors, international students’ ideas contribute to fostering a global consciousness and understanding, and they bring significant regional expertise and insights that are critically important as geographers tackle difficult research problems in different parts of the world. So, we should celebrate that student applications from abroad for the 2024 academic year continue to grow, and that our programs attract international students. And while we’re at it, maybe we can also check in with our international colleagues and students locally to make sure that they feel supported in the current, challenging political climate. After all, a global geographic consciousness also includes our home places.

It is wonderful to see so many international members of the AAG, and to know that so many colleagues from around the world continue to find their way to our conferences. My hope is that our next Annual Meeting in Detroit, a city on the U.S. border with Canada with a long history of immigration, will not only attract similar numbers of international attendees, but will also spark conversations about immigration, borders and difference, and continue to foster intellectual engagement across borders that enriches our geographic knowledge and our lives as geographers. As we continue to build global consciousness and understanding, the AAG remains committed to being a gathering place for all geographers.


Please note: The ideas expressed in the AAG President’s column are not necessarily the views of the AAG as a whole. This column is traditionally a space in which the president may talk about their views or focus during their tenure as president of AAG, or spotlight their areas of professional work. Please feel free to email the president directly at P.Ehrkamp [at] uky [at] edu to enable a constructive discussion.

    Share

Returning to Detroit: In solidarity and with care

A photo of several papers and books about Detroit arranged on a desktop. Credit: Patricia Ehrkamp
A photo of several papers and books about Detroit arranged on a desktop. Credit: Patricia Ehrkamp

Photo of Patricia Ehrkamp

After a 40-year hiatus, our Annual Meeting will be returning to Detroit, Michigan next March. The stack of Detroit-themed books and articles on my desk has been growing, and I am thrilled that the AAG will meet in this city again. Our long absence prompted me to briefly look back: We last met in Detroit in 1985 during the AAG presidency of Risa Palm, with 2,377 people in attendance. This may seem low given the size of more recent annual meetings, but the number of attendees amounted to roughly 44 percent of the AAG membership at the time. We were a much smaller organization then! As AAG Past President Risa Palm reminded me, the 1985 meeting was overshadowed by the University of Michigan’s decision to close their geography department only a little while earlier, which brought home the “institutional precarity of our discipline” (Huntley and Rosenblum, 2020: 367)—an ongoing concern for geography.

Like many deindustrialized cities in the U.S., Detroit has seen tremendous change since 1985, with shifts in its economic base, disinvestment, and serious population decline. In 2013, Detroit became the largest city in the US to ever declare bankruptcy. Since then, as you may know from U.S. media coverage, Detroit’s fate has changed. A recent example is the Ford corporation’s purchase and renovation of Detroit’s Michigan Central Station, which re-opened in June 2024. US media celebrate Detroit’s recent renaissance, including its renewed population growth after a decade of losses. More critical voices doubt, however, that all these new investments in the city, many of which come from outside, will benefit Detroiters. These are important concerns because “Detroit is continually rendered as a no-man’s-land and new frontier waiting to be claimed, tamed, and resettled” as Linda Campbell, Andrew Newman, Sara Safransky and Tim Stallman (2020: 11) write in A People’s Atlas of Detroit.

Our return to Detroit is in no small measure due to the advocacy of the Black Geographies Specialty Group (BGSG). As I learned during our preparations for the meeting in Detroit, BGSG urged former Executive Director Doug Richardson to hold another Annual Meeting there. “It is in the spirit of solidarity, academic intrigue, and social justice that we encourage you to select Detroit, Michigan as the host city for a future AAG Conference,” BGSG wrote in a letter[1] following the Boston AAG meeting in 2017. The letter emphasized that this majority Black city with its long history of activism and community organizing had long inspired important geographic research on race, ethnicity, and anti-Black racism–among others, the work of AAG Fellow and 2019 AAG Lifetime Achievement Award recipient Joe T. Darden.

Detroit, of course, holds a special place in the geographic imaginations of urban, radical and critical geographers because of the Detroit Geographical Expedition and Institute (DGEI), which was co-founded and co-directed by community organizer Gwendolyn Warren and geographer William (Bill) Bunge (1928-2013). DGEI operated from 1968-1972 with the goal to put geography to work in the interest of racial justice through community-based mapping and facilitating access to college education for Black Detroit youths. This work was possible with funding from the AAG. The re-release of Bunge’s book Fitzgerald: Geography of a Revolution in 2011 garnered renewed interest in the DGEI and Bunge’s work. Six sessions at the Annual Meeting in Boston in 2017 commemorated his contributions to radical geography, urban geography, and the quantitative revolution. At the 2014 AAG meeting in Tampa, two sessions focused on activist geographies and the legacies of the DGEI, including Gwendolyn Warren’s reflections in conversation with Cindi Katz (see also Warren, Katz and Heynen, 2019). This conversation challenged some of the myths in our discipline with regard to the DGEI that too often only focus on Bunge without fully understanding Warren’s role or acknowledging the important contributions of community research by “the Black people of Detroit.”

Given these complex histories, I hope that we will return to Detroit in solidarity and with care. This means “to take seriously the ways in which our work is “for others” and to build connection and responsibility as key values in our research approaches,” as AAG Past President Vicky Lawson wrote in 2007. It also means that we take seriously the city’s history and geography, and that we honor its residents’ experiences and visions for Detroit’s present and future. Recent work by geographers and others has taken on questions such as anti-eviction struggles (Quizar, 2024), property, displacement, and repair (Safransky, 2023), Indigenous and Black dispossession (Mays, 2022), and brought together community members, activists, and scholars to map and tell more nuanced stories of Detroit (Campbell, Newman, Safransky, and Stallman, 2020).

Returning to Detroit in solidarity and with care offers us an opportunity to pause and reflect on some of the historical erasures, silences, and exclusions in geography and in our professional organization, while also recognizing how much our discipline and the AAG have changed over time as we keep broadening the tent of geography. These changes are significant! I wrote about AAG’s commitment to advocacy, justice, equity, diversity, and inclusivity in my last column. But consider this: 40 years ago, there was no Black Geographies Specialty Group that could have advocated for a meeting in Detroit. Today, BGSG is a highly dynamic feature with a strong voice in the AAG and usually offers a curated track at our annual conference.

Holding a meeting in Detroit again—a city that has generated so much geographic interest and research—and returning there in solidarity and with care encourages us to make space for conversations about the future of geography, to collectively envision new geographic knowledges and practices, and—to borrow from Katherine McKittrick (2006: xv)—create more “humanly workable geographies.”  To me, this is what the meeting theme–Making Spaces of Possibility–is all about. As we have been planning the meeting, solidarity and care have already provided inspiration for several special sessions that will center research on Detroit and the wider region, and honor some of the contributions to geographic knowledge that have gone unacknowledged for too long. I hope that our annual meeting in the city of Detroit will be guided by “collective care—care for land, for relationships, and for people’s well-being” (Quizar, 2024: 802).

Our planning and preparations for the Annual Meeting is putting into practice solidarity and care through AAG’s commitment to a place-based approach to Annual Meetings. This includes putting together a series of webinars on Detroit and its surrounding areas, and creating opportunities for collaboration, volunteering, and learning in and from the city and region where we meet. Registration is open. I hope to see many of you there!

[1] The letter also listed the following supporters: Drs. Joe Darden & Alan Arbogast, Michigan State University Department of Geography, the Eastern Michigan University Department of Geography and Geology, the Geographies of Food and Agriculture Specialty Group, ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, Journal of Social & Cultural Geography and Feminist Liberating Our Collective Knowledge (FLOCK), UNC — Chapel Hill.

References

Campbell, L., Newman, A., Safransky, S., Stallmann, T. (eds.) (2020). A People’s Atlas of Detroit. Wayne State University Press.

Detroit Geographical Expedition and Institute (1971). Available at https://antipodeonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/dgei_fieldnotes-iii_b.pdf.

Huntley, E. R., & Rosenblum, M. (2020). The Omega affair: Discontinuing the University of Michigan Department of Geography (1975–1982). Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 111(2), 364-384. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2020.1760780#d1e244

Lawson, V. (2007). Geographies of Care and Responsibility. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 97(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2007.00520.x

Mays, K. T. (2022). City of Dispossessions: Indigenous Peoples, African Americans, and the Creation of Modern Detroit. University of Pennsylvania Press.

McKittrick, K. (2006). Demonic Grounds. Black Women and the Cartographies of Struggle. University of Minnesota Press.

Quizar, J. (2024). A Logic of Care and Black Grassroots Claims to Home in Detroit. Antipode, 56(3), 801-820.

Safransky, S. (2023). The City after Property: Abandonment and Repair in Postindustrial Detroit. Duke University Press.

Warren, G. C., Katz, C., & Heynen, N. (2019). Myths, Cults, Memories, and Revisions in Radical Geographic History: Revisiting the Detroit Geographical Expedition and Institute. Spatial Histories of Radical Geography: North America and Beyond, eds. T.J. Barnes and E. Sheppard, Wiley: 59-85.


Please note: The ideas expressed in the AAG President’s column are not necessarily the views of the AAG as a whole. This column is traditionally a space in which the president may talk about their views or focus during their tenure as president of AAG, or spotlight their areas of professional work. Please feel free to email the president directly at P.Ehrkamp [at] uky [at] edu to enable a constructive discussion.

    Share

Academic Freedom, Advocacy, and the Importance of Our Professional Association

Image showing silhouettes of graduates wearing caps and gowns with a sunset in the background

Photo of Patricia Ehrkamp

Many of us look forward to summer, as it tends to bring some time to rest and reflect. Alas, this summer I find it more difficult to put my mind at ease as hardly a day goes by without news of another challenge facing higher education. At the end of June, Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed House Bill 2735, which landed on her desk after passing the Arizona State Senate following much debate in and outside the legislature. The bill, purportedly drafted in response to a financial crisis at the University of Arizona, intends to concentrate decision-making power over educational matters in university regents and presidents. While House Bill 2735 has not been signed into law, challenges to faculty participation in shared governance and to academic freedom more broadly abound. Some of these challenges originate from within universities. Take, for example, the University of Kentucky, my home institution. Following a longer campaign by the university’s president, our university senate, which had curricular oversight and decision-making power with regard to educational policy, is being replaced with a faculty senate that only has advisory capacity. Similar to the intent of Arizona’s House Bill 2735, this shift consolidates educational policy decision-making power with the university president and the Board of Trustees.

Other challenges to academic freedom and even the right to free speech have followed on the heels of on-campus, often pro-Palestinian, protests and encampments in the late spring and early summer. Across the United States, colleges and universities have responded to such protests with increasing amounts of policing—arresting, suspending, and expelling students and faculty. These crackdowns infringe on the First Amendment right to protest, and they are indicative of growing restrictions to campuses as sites of open dialogue. Together with wider ranging, often sudden shifts in university policies and newly implemented rules that go into effect without notice, police force and the threat of violence toward protesters seem intent on discouraging public debate by intimidating students and faculty.

More broadly, legislatures in numerous states of the U.S. have targeted educational freedom through a number of bills that variably seek to ban particular theoretical frameworks that explain social injustice (such as critical race theory), AP Black Studies courses, or mention of inequalities, as well as DEI initiatives that seek to redress existing inequities in colleges and universities. In 2023 alone, some 45 anti-DEI bills were introduced across the country; more are underway. These legislative initiatives, as many of you know, have gone far in their attempts to undermine efforts at remedying some of the historical injustices and exclusions in higher education.

Safeguarding and Strengthening Geography for the Future

Against the backdrop of these challenges, which often appear alongside broader budgetary and demographic shifts, I felt fortunate to spend some time with department and program leaders in geography and cognate disciplines to discuss external pressures on our discipline, our departments, and workplaces at this year’s AAG Department Leadership workshop. Two days of virtual meetings that I co-organized and co-hosted with past AAG presidents Ken Foote and Rebecca Lave, and the AAG’s chief strategy officer Risha RaQuelle, made space for thinking carefully through the question of what makes a department healthy and why department health matters, a conversation that originated 20 years ago. The workshop provided ample opportunities to discuss the challenges and pressures that face higher education and geography, and to explore with expert session leaders, as well, the opportunities that such shifts in higher education and on college campuses may bring. Some of our sessions explicitly addressed the need to make the case for geography to university administrators and to our students and their parents. These latter sessions generated thoughtful discussions on what geographic inquiry and knowledge offer students in terms of career readiness skills and career paths. We discussed how to communicate (including to university administrators) geography’s integrative nature and our discipline’s ability to tackle big questions such as climate change.

And while state legislatures or some university administrators may think differently, we also talked about the importance of improving shared governance within departments in order to create better workplaces for one another and to better serve our students. Our conversations about building, expanding, and maintaining a Culture of Care in geographers’ everyday workspaces also addressed the legislative challenges to equity, inclusivity, and diversity that may require a new vocabulary and different strategies for us to continue our work toward more just geographies.

Sharing the leadership workshop space with such talented and dedicated department and program leaders not only leaves me impressed and confident in the future of geography, but also reminds me why our professional organization has such a critical and necessary role to play! For many geographers, our first introduction to the AAG comes via participating in the annual meeting or in the regional division conferences, and these remain important cornerstones of the AAG’s work to facilitate geographic knowledge production. But the AAG does much more than that on behalf of geographers. Apart from professional development and mentoring initiatives such as the annual AAG leadership workshop and the GFDA early career development workshop, the AAG supports and enriches the lives of geographers in academic and non-academic careers through its Specialty and Affinity Groups, and AAG’s new initiative to encourage Research Partnerships (the first RFP focuses on Targeted Mentoring Networks). I also encourage you to check out the educational materials on the AAG’s wetbsite and YouTube channel, such as these readings in Black Geographies and racial justice and in Queer and Trans Geographies.

As our professional organization, the AAG also plays an important role in providing guidance, leadership, and advocacy for scholar-educators and non-academic geography practitioners alike. I have been impressed with the growing efforts to integrate our collective commitments to justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (JEDI) across the AAG’s activities to create a more equitable and more inclusive discipline of geography. The Healthy Departments Committee’s activities in support of programs facing external pressures are invaluable, and so is committee chair and AAG Past President David Kaplan’s advice for departments to be proactive. Similarly, the Elevate the Discipline initiative provides guidance and media training for geographers to engage in public scholarship that communicates geographic insights to the wider public, a worthwhile endeavor that dovetails well with immediate past president Rebecca Lave’s focus on public and engaged scholarship.

In the current moment, I especially appreciate the AAG’s leadership in climate action, support for scientific inquiry, public scholarship, inclusion, and more broadly its advocacy in support of academic and educational freedom. My own scholarly work grapples with questions of rights, care, and justice, and the attacks on shared governance, academic freedom, and civic rights feel like significant challenges to democracy itself. So, I am grateful that the AAG is one of 40 professional organizations to sign on to the American Historical Association’s Statement on 2024 Campus Protests that affirms the right to a diversity of opinions and calls on university administrators to refrain from using force to suppress protests.

As our scientific and professional organization, the AAG’s advocacy on behalf of geography is critical and I am grateful for it. But the work to keep improving our discipline and our work as geographers falls on all of us. So, I want to close with the gentle reminder that in order to create more equitable worlds of geography and for geographers, all of us are called upon “to uphold equity, human rights, and educational freedom.”


Please note: The ideas expressed in the AAG President’s column are not necessarily the views of the AAG as a whole. This column is traditionally a space in which the president may talk about their views or focus during their tenure as president of AAG, or spotlight their areas of professional work. Please feel free to email the president directly at P.Ehrkamp [at] uky [at] edu to enable a constructive discussion.

    Share

Welcoming a New President to AAG – Interview with Patricia Ehrkamp

Image of digital dots and lines forming a gavel on a desk. Credit: Conny Schneider, Unsplash
Credit: Conny Schneider, Unsplash

 

Photo of Rebecca LavePhoto of Patricia EhrkampFor the last president’s column of her term, President Rebecca Lave talked with incoming President Patricia Ehrkamp about her experiences within the discipline and her aspirations for her upcoming leadership at AAG. The following conversation offers insight into the new directions for the 2024-25 presidency.

RL: What brought you to geography?

PE: I’ve been a geographer since fifth grade. I grew up in Germany, and geography is taught in school and for a long time it was my favorite topic. Probably what drew me to geography then, and keeps me here, is that it’s a way of thinking about the world and understanding the world around us. And that’s fascinating.

RL: Yes, I love the way that geography so deeply connects theory with fieldwork: if you want to understand a place, you need to go there and engage in a deeply empirical way.

PE: I love the integrative nature of geography; we can study physical geography, study drought and desertification (which I did quite a bit of in Germany) alongside immigration and geopolitics, which is what I specialize in at this point. All of it in so many ways are about the relationships, and connections between environments and people, and people and environments, and different places. The fact that we, as a discipline, can even think of tackling such complex questions as climate justice, human displacement, and food security, that’s what continues to excite me about geography

RL: What do you tell students about what makes geography so relevant to the questions of the day?

PE: It’s such an amazing discipline, you know. There are so many ways that geographers can make a difference: think about making cities more livable and more just for more people. We study climate change, from both the physical science perspective and considering its impacts on people’s lives, and hopefully find solutions to alleviate these impacts. That’s what makes geography so unique and so relevant. We can analyze and map data, and then put that data to work in the interest of social justice.

RL: What prompted you to run for office in the AAG?

PE: I’ve been involved in the AAG for quite some time. I’ve served on the boards of a number of different Specialty Groups, and I’ve always enjoyed them, it’s always been a great experience. I had no idea that I was going to be nominated as vice president—as it so often happens, I think. But in thinking about it, it’s an important time to be involved, right? We’re looking at changes in higher education, challenges to academic freedom, and it’s especially important, if we have expertise and energy that we can lend, that we do so. And there are things that I want to do, also. Like thinking about how to make a more inclusive discipline: there are important efforts on the way with the JEDI Committee and Risha RaQuelle’s leadership. There is important work to support, like your work on the Public and Engaged Scholarship Task Force. So, I thought I could maybe help the broader project of working toward positive change and making a more equitable discipline of geography. That’s really what made me run.

RL: What would you say to a member considering volunteering or serving in some way with AAG?

PE: Do it! Get involved. I’ve learned so much from serving on boards of Specialty Groups, and it’s been such a joy also. You make all these connections with people from across the country, from across the world, even. One of the things I did on one of the boards was read submissions for student paper awards. You get to see this fascinating work people do, the next generation of geographers with all their brilliant ideas. So, what’s not to love? I would encourage anybody who is interested in participating to get involved. It really gives you a whole different perspective on the discipline, the organization, and it allows you to work with others and collaborate on the things that matter.

RL: I would totally agree with you on all of that. I had a somewhat different path because while I did a bit of Specially Group work, my main involvement with AAG was through the Honors Committee. Celebrating people for their work is my happy place, and it was super interesting to see the process and get to learn more about the work of the people that were nominated. Also, the committees all have people that I never would have run into otherwise because they’re in different geographic specialties. That was really cool, too.

PE: I agree, working with geographers across the breadth of the discipline is fabulous! All the committees do really important and interesting work on behalf of geographers, and it is so rewarding.

RL:  What initiatives and projects are you most excited about for your time as president?

PE: One of the big reasons why I wanted to run is my interest in strengthening approaches to mentoring. In my home department at the University of Kentucky, we’ve done a reasonably good job of creating support structures. When I was chair, I worked on creating policies, best practices. One of our most important jobs as geographers is to train the next generations and make sure that they have the best possible situation when they’re starting out in their careers. It’s not the same for everybody because some of us will end up in very small departments, in different types of institutions, or even being the only geographer at their institution. One of the things I wanted to do is think about how the AAG can best support earlier career geographers. What structures we could put in place. The Mentoring Task Force has been looking at what best practices exist, and how we can put them together. We are having conversations about topics like, how do you know when you want to be a mentor, how do you become a mentor and, if you’re becoming a mentor, are there ways that you can be trained? Are there models that work better for smaller or larger group settings so we don’t just rely on individual one-on-one mentoring?

RL: Those feel like such important questions to me. I also love the focus on moving beyond individual mentoring because I think having a broad range of mentors for a lot of different things is super helpful.

PE: Yes, you need an ecosystem, right? I’ve thoroughly enjoyed mentoring, too, and I think about getting more people involved as mentors. There’s so much learning to be done on both ends.

RL: Is there anything else that you would like to add?

PE: I so enjoyed the Honolulu meeting and the way the AAG– thanks to you and everybody at AAG and local collaborators who worked so hard–had a meeting that was so well prepared, where you felt grounded, where you had an idea of where you were going and why it matters how you show up as a geographer in a place. I think that was brilliant, and the meeting was just such a wonderful experience. I loved learning from all the plenaries on Indigenous work or scholarship, and questions of extraction and coloniality and again related to questions of justice. I am excited to carry that forward into the next meeting in Detroit, and I hope everybody else is going to be inspired to work with us on that. I think being grounded in the place, being able to bring the city and the place into the conference, bringing the conference of geographers into the city and surroundings–in meaningful ways, not just drive-by visits–I think that is so important, and we generally do that well as geographers.

And lastly, I’d like to say that I’ve been really enjoying this first year of AAG service. I’ve learned so much as vice president and I’ve very much enjoyed working with the Council and everybody on it and AAG staff, who are so committed and competent. And I know they’re working really, really hard all the time. Not just to create Annual Meeting experiences but to support us year-round, to make sure that there is a voice from the AAG to the outside world as well, which I think is increasingly important. I’ve learned a lot and I look forward to the next couple of years.


Please note: The ideas expressed in the AAG President’s column are not necessarily the views of the AAG as a whole. This column is traditionally a space in which the president may talk about their views or focus during their tenure as president of AAG, or spotlight their areas of professional work. Please feel free to email the president directly at rlave [at] indiana [at] edu to enable a constructive discussion.

 

    Share

Reflections on the Honolulu Meeting

Aerial view of Honolulu highlighted by a rainbow. Photo by Hendrik Cornelissen for Unsplash
Aerial view of Honolulu highlighted by a rainbow. Photo by Hendrik Cornelissen, Unsplash

Photo of Rebecca Lave

The annual meeting in Honolulu last month debuted a new conference model for AAG, one strongly engaged with local history and current struggles, centering the knowledge, aspirations, and agency of our hosts. The nearly 3,800 geographers who gathered in person and the more than 1,000 who joined us online did all the normal annual meeting things: presenting our research, honoring one another’s accomplishments, competing in the GeoBowl, and catching up with colleagues. But we did so while embracing our kuleana as guests in Kanaka Māoli territory, building reciprocal relations by listening with care, participating in land engagements and workshops, and giving our labor and money via the Pledge to our Keiki. The result was an annual meeting deeply grounded in place, a celebration of both the long tradition of place-based “muddy boots” geography and the lived experiences and scholarship of our hosts.

A New Model: Place-based Annual Meetings

The journey to this new reciprocal, place-based model for AAG annual meetings began with a wave of critique from geographers on four continents who expressed substantive concerns about violating Kanaka Māoli sovereignty by holding the annual meeting on O‘ahu. AAG responded by reaching out to Hawaiian geographers for guidance, and adopting the actions they recommended, including hiring an Indigenous Hawaiian local events coordinator, Neil Hannahs; developing a series of freely available webinars and resources that showcased Kanaka Māoli history, culture, and knowledge as well as the military and settler colonial actions that have reshaped the islands over the last two centuries; and giving free admission to 65 Indigenous students from across the Pacific Basin.

One of the most powerful parts of the new approach to the annual meetings for me was the featured sessions highlighting Kanaka Māoli scholars and leaders. Explorer, Pwo navigator, and cultural revivalist Nainoa Thompson, this year’s Honorary Geographer, offered both a powerful history of the collective work to recover traditional Hawaiian navigation practices. Thompson also offered the most inspiring description of geography and the work geographers can do in the world that I have ever heard.

“Geographers today in the 21st century clearly understand the importance of the earth. They are navigators for tomorrow who are able to view the world not just from its physical and ecological space but also from humanity’s relationship to it. They look at the whole earth and all of humanity and that relationship so that they can help us make better choices to create a sail plan that will take us to a future that is good enough for our keiki.”

Thanks to the hybrid format of the meeting, this session was both live-streamed and recorded.  If you missed it, I strongly encourage you to watch the recording.

I am delighted by the many geographers who have shared their gratitude for the new approach to the annual meeting.

The intellectual and emotional resonance of the Honolulu meeting was the labor of many hands.  The 2022 annual meeting of the New Zealand Geographical Society in Christchurch was a crucial inspiration, demonstrating the power of a more bi-cultural academic practice. Another crucial component was AAG’s willingness to change its approach to annual meetings: departing from long-established practices to create a new template for the conference was a huge commitment. The local organizing committee members (Reece Jones, Neil Hannahs, Aurora Kagawa-Viviani, Kathryn Besio, Kamakanaokealoha Aquino, Abigail Hawkins, Kevin Woods, Serge Marek, Orhon Myadar, Borjana Lubura-Winchester, Subhashni Raj, Drew Kapp, Sa’iliemanu Lilomaiava-Doktor, Lisa Shirota, Christopher Knudson, and Barbara Quimby), too, had the hard work of inventing new practices and deepened engagements. Many specialty groups ensured the reciprocal spirit extended throughout the meeting by choosing speakers from Pacific Basin groups, and dozens of session organizers embraced the conference themes of Reciprocal Scholarship/ʻAʻohe pau ka ‘ike i ka hālau hoʻokahi; Colonialism and Resources/He aliʻi ka ‘āina, he kauwā ke kānaka; and Recovery and Restoration/Mōhala i ka wai ka maka o ka pua.

Most importantly, Kanaka Māoli leaders and scholars were willing to engage with us, to take our good faith efforts seriously and respond in kind.

Successful Nodes and Ongoing Climate Challenges

Carbon emissions from annual meetings remain a major challenge for AAG and learned societies more generally. I am delighted to report that we expanded to 11 nodes this year. A big shout out to the awesome folks at South Australia, Binghamton University and Southern Tier New York, California State University at Fullerton, George Washington University, Penn State, Rutgers, University of Colorado-Boulder, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Toronto, Western Washington University’s Salish Sea Region, and University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, who together hosted several hundred participants, and provided a robust, far less carbon-intensive approach.

Expanding nodes and other less carbonintensive meeting practices will be crucial for addressing the carbon impact of future AAG meetings, but it will not be easy. At present, AAG depends on in-person annual meetings for nearly 50% of its revenue.  That means that a virtual conference, or even a distributed hub and node model, would have a financial impact so substantial as to jeopardize the future of the organization.

AAG is in the process of changing its financial model to reduce the impact of the annual meeting, but finding a way to meet our commitment to carbon neutrality by 2045 while maintaining the fiscal health of the organization is a major challenge. AAG’s Climate Action Task Force will be working with AAG staff in hopes of developing a financially feasible, less carbon-intensive model for our annual meetings.

Onward to Detroit!

Engaging with place at annual meetings is an inspiring new model for AAG, but it will take time and effort from all of us to keep it going. AAG staff and incoming AAG President Patricia Ehrkamp have already begun planning for the 2025 meeting. As we did in Honolulu, we can support a reciprocal, place-based annual meeting by embracing our responsibility as guests in Detroit, building relations by listening with care, participating in land engagements and workshops, and giving back with our labor and money.

More specifically, I encourage you to start thinking about Detroit-focused speakers for your specialty group’s annual lectures, and to engage conference themes in the sessions you plan. Watch for opportunities to educate yourself about Detroit: its history and current struggles, and the local knowledge, aspirations, and agency of our hosts. And come to the annual meeting in 2025 with a spirit of curiosity, engagement, and reciprocity. I look forward to seeing you there!


Please note: The ideas expressed in the AAG President’s column are not necessarily the views of the AAG as a whole. This column is traditionally a space in which the president may talk about their views or focus during their tenure as president of AAG, or spotlight their areas of professional work. Please feel free to email the president directly at rlave [at] indiana [at] edu to enable a constructive discussion.

 

    Share

At AAG 2024, a Timely Conversation on Reciprocal Scholarship

Melanie Malone works with young people from the community. Photo credit: Urban@UW
Dr. Melanie Malone (center) sampling soils and garden produce with young people from the community and with University of Washington students. Photo credit: Urban@UW

Photo of Rebecca Lave

One of my favorite parts of serving as AAG President is the opportunity to showcase the work of scholars I admire, so I am REALLY looking forward to the Presidential Plenary on April 17. The Plenary will spotlight reciprocal scholarship through the work of Núbia Beray Armond, Aurora Kagawa-Viviani, and Melanie Malone, three early-career scholars whose community-engaged research embraces both physical systems and structural injustice. Reciprocal scholarship is one of the three major themes of this year’s meeting, which feels especially appropriate given that we have spent the year listening, discussing, and acting on ways to create a meaningful and reciprocal presence in Honolulu during the annual meeting.

Reciprocal scholarship differs from conventional modes of scholarship that rely on extractive “helicopter science” to go into the field, obtain data and draw conclusions, and benefit through publishing without taking the time to form relationships or give back to a community. By contrast, reciprocal scholarship emphasizes the importance of building substantive relationships, ensuring mutual benefits from research, and honoring communities’ right to self-determination. How might that manifest? Without anticipating the April 17 conversation too much, I want to call out a few points from my previous article on this topic:

  • honoring communities’ right to refuse that they or their biophysical environment be studied (Liboiron 2021);
  • developing questions, conducting research and analyzing results cooperatively with communities (Lane et al. 2011, Breitbart 2016); and
  • protecting communities’ right to control what happens to data produced about them (Williamson et al. 2023).

There are reciprocal approaches across all geographic fields, from physical geography to GIS to human/environment and human geography. While community-engaged scholarship is more commonly associated with the latter areas, physical geography is especially fertile ground (pun intended!) for the discussion of reciprocity, as the three scholars on the Presidential Plenary can attest, since land is itself a site of both brutal extractions and reciprocal possibilities

Beray Armond, Kagawa-Viviani, and Malone practice reciprocity in their physical geography research, using engaged approaches to make important, localized, and community-based progress on climate change, water quality, and soil health:

Núbia Beray Armond is an assistant professor in the Department of Geography at Indiana University Bloomington. Beray Armond’s urban climatology research analyzes indoor and outdoor temperatures in relation to race, gender, and legacies of colonialism, collaborating with local communities to identify and address climate injustices.

Aurora Kagawa-Viviani is an assistant professor at the Water Resources Research Center and Department of Geography and Environment at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, and a current volunteer member of the Hawaiʻi Commission on Water Resource Management. Her background in Indigenous STEM program development inspired her to integrate her research, service, and teaching to respond to community needs while improving understanding of the interrelations of water, ecosystems, and human systems.

Melanie Malone is an associate professor in the School of Interdisciplinary Arts & Sciences, UW Bothell. She does critical community-engaged research on soil contamination in BIPOC-led community gardens in the Seattle/Tacoma region, and is the lead principal investigator of an EPA STAR grant, “The Duwamish Valley Research Coordination Network: Building Capacity for Tribal, Community, and Agency Research in Urban Watersheds.”

Beyond the April plenary, the AAG Task Force on Public and Engaged Scholarship will continue to explore how to support reciprocal scholarship in geography. For information on the members of that Task Force and more information on the topic, see my article from 2023.

Join AAG President Dr. Rebecca Lave and her panelists on April 17 at 4:40 PM Hawaiian time at AAG 2024, featuring the insights of three powerhouse interdisciplinary scholars and advocates. The presentation will be livestreamed and recorded for all participants in AAG 2024.

Please note: The ideas expressed in the AAG President’s column are not necessarily the views of the AAG as a whole. This column is traditionally a space in which the president may talk about their views or focus during their tenure as president of AAG, or spotlight their areas of professional work. Please feel free to email the president directly at rlave [at] indiana [at] edu to enable a constructive discussion.

    Share

Building Vibrant Departmental Cultures, Part Three: Developing more transparent and horizontal governance

Stylized tile wall with "possible" spelled out; credit: Chang Ye, Unsplash
Credit: Chang Ye, Unsplash

Photo of Rebecca Lave

My previous columns in this series described how we transformed Indiana University Geography from a space of personal and intellectual conflict into a vibrant and collegial department. As described in Part One of this series, a key component of our success was abandoning the traditional physical/human-environment/human geography division and replacing it with a problem-focused interdisciplinary departmental structure. A second key component was creating a culture of care and respect for students, staff, and faculty. In this column, I focus on developing more horizontal and transparent governance practices and policies.

Inclusive, horizontal governance

One of the most important factors for us in building cohesion has been buy-in: people need to feel that they have a real, substantive stake in departmental decisions. The trick is how to balance this with respecting the time of Assistant Professors and non-tenure-track (NNT) faculty, whose job security depends on not sinking too much time into service.

Our approach has been to create small (usually 3-4 member) ad hoc committees to investigate and make recommendations on any important policy decision. The chair of the ad hoc committee is a tenured faculty member charged with most of the labor: scheduling meetings, writing agendas, drafting memos to update the rest of the faculty, etc. Thus, the ask for the other committee members is only the substantive parts of the policy-making process: considering potential solutions, deciding how to explain them clearly and succinctly to the rest of the faculty, and recommending a path forward.

Each committee’s recommendations are discussed in faculty meetings. Often it takes two or three rounds of discussion to consider the strengths and weaknesses of an ad hoc committee’s proposal before we are ready to vote. Because of this careful process, and because we include an explicit proviso that we can revisit any decision if it does not achieve what we hoped it would, most of these votes are unanimous.

This approach creates a relatively horizontal governance structure by enabling a lot of substantive input with relatively small investments of time from our structurally vulnerable colleagues. We have used it to gradually change many aspects of our program, from giving NTT faculty all voting rights the university allows them (including voting on TT hires), to allowing public and engaged scholarship to count as up to 25% of promotion and tenure cases, to changing the pedagogy and methods requirements for our graduate program.

Transparent expectations

I started my term as department chair in 2019 intending to focus on our undergraduate program, but meetings with graduate students made it clear that the department had some serious discrepancies in mentoring that needed to be addressed immediately. We created an ad hoc committee focused on mentorship, this time with graduate student members as well. The ad hoc committee’s goal was to clarify our collective expectations for the responsibilities advisors and advisees had to each other and the rest of the departmental community. We felt that this transparency was particularly important for first generation and international students, who often had no idea how advisors were supposed to behave, what advisors could and could not ask of them, or where their funding came from.

In the end, we made three big changes to our graduate program. The most important was a unanimously adopted list of expectations for advisors and advisees that spelled out agreed-upon practices for everything from professionalization and pedagogy training to timelines for replying to emails. This included sections on what advisors should never ask students to do, and on the department’s responsibility to admitted students. The documents we produced went through many more rounds of review than was typical because they touched on almost aspect of department of life.

Guidance for Advisor/Advisee Interactions

The Department of Geography views graduate education as one of its key missions and would like our community to be clear on the central aspects of the advisor/advisee relationship. Graduate education is a form of apprenticeship, but there are basic responsibilities on both sides. Professors expect professional behavior from students and students should receive the same from faculty advisors. Finally, it is important to note that it is the Department, not the advisor, that admits graduate students, and thus the Department also has responsibilities to graduate students as spelled out below. 

Students should:

  • Communicate constructively and respectfully with all members of the department, including office staff.
  • Behave professionally in all academic settings.
  • Work with their advisor to schedule arrival times for drafts of presentations, articles, etc. to enable advisors to provide timely feedback.
  • Meet deadlines agreed to with their advisors.
  • Respond to communications from their advisor during the academic year within three working days for research-related questions, and one working day for AI-related duties unless otherwise indicated in the email, and absent extenuating circumstances (e.g. a health crisis).
  • Nudge their advisor if they do not respond in a timely fashion as defined below.
  • Keep all appointments unless other arrangements have been made.
  • Engage, reflect, and act on their advisor’s feedback and advice.
  • Get in touch with their advisor immediately if they run into serious intellectual or professional issues, or personal issues that affect their research or other academic duties.
  • Help to build the intellectual community in the department through participation in courses, attendance at departmental colloquia, attendance and participation with GGSO, and interactions with other faculty and graduate students.
  • Be aware of what constitutes plagiarism and avoid it.
  • Contribute actively to their own intellectual development, and work to expand their intellectual resources and community.
  • Be proactive about forming an advisory committee, and also about changing the composition of that committee if needed.
  • Meet with their advisory committee annually to discuss their progress towards degree.
  • Fill out an evaluation of their advisor each year using the departmental checklist, and submit it to the Director of Graduate Studies. 

Advisors should:

  • Interact constructively and respectfully.
  • Meet at least bi-weekly during the academic year with students who are in residence, if not on medical, parental or sabbatical leave, and absent extenuating circumstances (e.g. health crisis).
  • Respond to student communications during the academic year within three working days for research-related questions, and one working day for AI-related duties unless otherwise indicated in the email; if not on medical, parental or sabbatical leave; and absent extenuating circumstances (e.g. a health crisis).
  • Respond gracefully and respectfully to reminders from students.
  • Help students understand the substance and methods of their field by providing intellectual guidance and training.
  • Discuss and provide guidance on research ethics.
  • Encourage safety in the field.
  • Encourage a healthy work/life balance.
  • Help students understand the expectations for professional behavior in their field (e.g. how to behave in the classroom, at conferences, etc.).
  • Work with students on the basics of academic professionalization, including:
    • How to prepare an academic CV;
    • How to write a conference abstract;
    • How to give the most common forms of academic presentations (e.g. 15 and 45-minute talks);
    • How to write a grant application (if relevant); and
    • How to apply for academic jobs.
  • Encourage and help students to publish by:
    • Discussing journal selection;
    • Reviewing draft manuscripts; and
    • Teaching students efficient and constructive ways to respond to peer reviews.
  • Provide useful and timely feedback on student work during the academic year, if not on medical, parental or sabbatical leave and absent extenuating circumstances (e.g. a health crisis) as follows:
    • On presentations, within three working days;
    • On article and thesis drafts, within 1-2 weeks; and
    • On dissertations, within one month.
    • Feedback should be constructive and respectfully-phrased
  • Determine the standards for presentations, theses, dissertations, journal articles, and reports.
  • Give students credit for contributions to papers, presentations, or other products.
  • Work with students on non-course specific teaching skills, including:
    • How to prepare a syllabus;
    • How to facilitate class discussions;
    • Fair and appropriate grading; and
    • How to deal with teaching-related problems (e.g., difficult students, misconduct, etc.).
  • Help students connect to other scholars in their field.
  • Discuss alternatives to academic careers and direct the student to relevant resources, such as the Walter Center.
  • Meet with their advisee’s full committee annually to discuss progress towards degree.
  • Fill out an evaluation of their advisee each year using the department checklist and submit it to the Director of Graduate Studies.

Advisors should never:

  • Expect student assistance in non-academic realms (e.g. running personal errands).
  • Belittle or demean a student in person or other media.
  • Deny students access to data they helped collect.
  • Express romantic or sexual interest in a student or commit any form of gender or sexual harassment.
  • Use a student’s work without attribution.
  • Ask an AI/RA to work more than 20 hours/week.
  • Ask a student to write papers or presentations for
  • Ask a student to write their own recommendation letter.

The Department should: [1]

  • Provide students with up-to-date information that includes policies, practices, degree requirements, and resources.
  • Assist students with selection of their advisors as needed.
  • Communicate clearly and comprehensively about funding packages in admissions letters.
  • In cases where conflicts arise between advisors and advisees, the DGS (or the Chair, if the DGS is the advisor) will:
    • Meet with the advisor and advisee to resolve those conflicts;
    • Follow up within 8 weeks to see if the conflict has been addressed;
    • If not, the DGS or Chair will:
      • Assist the student in finding another advisor in the department;
      • Assist the student in finding another advisor at IU;
      • Assist the student in selecting appropriate programs at other universities.
  • Provide pedagogical training and regular assessment of their teaching and other assistantship activities.
  • Review graduate student progress toward their degrees and professional development, including mentoring meetings, committee meetings, exam completions, and other benchmarks appropriate to their discipline.
  • Provide appropriate infrastructure to allow students to complete their education and research in a timely and productive manner, such as office space, computers, laboratory facilities, and equipment.
  • Provide opportunities for professional development that will be relevant to students seeking careers outside academia and/or their research discipline.
  • Establish and communicate policies for emergencies and unplanned situations that may disrupt the work of students and/or faculty.
  • Incorporate these guidelines and recommendations into their departmental policies or handbooks and actively promote their observance.

[1] Modified from Penn State’s Guidelines for Advisor-Graduate Student Interactions

 

With transparent expectations in place, we turned to accountability: trying to identify when we were not living up to expectations so that we could fix issues before they turned into crises. We converted that list of expectations into check-box forms to be completed each year by advisees and advisors and sent to the Director of Graduate Studies (not each other). We also adopted a practice of requiring graduate students to convene their research committee annually to check in on their progress towards degree and discuss any questions or concerns the student might have. As with the checklists, the goal of the annual committee meetings is to catch issues while they are still fixable, but by allowing other faculty members to observe the advisor/advisee relationship directly rather than relying on self-reporting.

Advisor’s Checklist

Advisor: _______________________________                                                   Date: ____________

Advisee: _______________________________

To my knowledge, this student is:

___ Communicating constructively and respectfully with all members of the department, including office staff.

___ Behaving professionally in all academic settings.

___ Working with me to schedule arrival times for drafts of presentations, articles, etc. to enable me to provide timely feedback.

___ Meeting the deadlines we have agreed to.

___ Responding to communications from me during the academic year within three working days for research-related questions, and one working day for AI-related duties unless otherwise indicated in the email, and absent extenuating circumstances (e.g. a health crisis).

___ Nudging me if I do not respond in a timely fashion.

___ Keeping all appointments unless other arrangements have been made.

___ Engaging, reflecting, and acting on my feedback and advice.

___ Getting in touch with me immediately if they run into serious intellectual or professional issues, or personal issues that affect their research or other academic duties.

___ Helping to build the intellectual community in the department through participation in courses, attendance at departmental colloquia, attendance and participation with GGSO, and interactions with other faculty and graduate students.

___ Aware of what constitutes plagiarism and how to avoid it.

___ Contributing actively to their own intellectual development, and working to expand their intellectual resources and community.

___ Taking their pedagogical responsibilities for the department seriously, and practicing leading part or all of a class session from their third semester until they serve as lead instructor or graduate.

___ Being proactive about forming an advisory committee, and also about changing the composition of that committee if needed.

___ Meeting with their advisory committee annually to discuss their progress towards degree. 

Please explain any areas of concern:

 

Advisee’s Checklist

Advisor: _______________________________                                                   Date: ____________

Advisee: _______________________________

My advisor is:

___ Interacting with me constructively and respectfully.

___ Meeting with me at least bi-weekly during the academic year.

___ Responding to emails from me during the academic year within three working days for research-related questions, and one working day for AI-related duties unless otherwise indicated in the email.

___ Responding gracefully and respectfully to reminders from students.

___ Helping me understand the substance and methods of my field by providing intellectual guidance and training.

___ Discussing and providing guidance on research ethics.

___ Encouraging safety in the field.

___ Encouraging a healthy work/life balance.

___ Helping me understand the expectations for professional behavior in my field (e.g. how to behave in the classroom, at conferences, etc.).

___ Working with me on the basics of academic professionalization, including:

  • How to prepare an academic CV;
  • How to write a conference abstract;
  • How to give the most common forms of academic presentations (e.g. 15 and 45-minute talks);
  • How to write a grant application (if relevant); and
  • How to apply for academic jobs.

___ Encouraging and helping me to publish by:

  • Discussing journal selection;
  • Reviewing draft manuscripts; and
  • Teaching me efficient and constructive ways to respond to peer reviews.

___ Providing useful and timely feedback on my work during the academic year as follows:

  • On presentations, within three working days;
  • On article and thesis drafts, within 1-2 weeks; and
  • On dissertations, within one month.

___ Giving me clear direction about their standards for presentations, theses, dissertations, journal articles, and reports.

___ Giving me credit for contributions to papers, presentations, or other products (see departmental co-authorship guidelines)

___ Working with me on non-course specific teaching skills, including:

  • How to prepare a syllabus;
  • How to facilitate class discussions;
  • Fair and appropriate grading; and
  • How to deal with teaching-related problems (e.g., difficult students, misconduct, etc.).

___ Helping me connect to other scholars in my field.

___ Discussing alternatives to academic careers and helping me connect to relevant resources, such as the Walter Center.

___ Meeting with my full committee annually to discuss progress towards degree.

 

My advisor is not:

___ Expecting me to assist them in non-academic realms (e.g. running personal errands).

___ Belittling or demeaning me in person or other media.

___ Obstructing my access to data I helped collect.

___ Expressing romantic or sexual interest in me or committing any form of gender or sexual harassment.

___ Using my work without attribution.

___ Asking me to work more than 20 hours/week on average for my AI/RA position.

___ Asking me to write papers or presentations for them.

___ Asking me to write my own recommendation letter.

Please explain any areas of concern:

 

Better is Possible

In this series, I have highlighted a few things that I believe have been particularly important in our departmental journey, but there is no blueprint for building a vibrant department. My colleagues here at IU might emphasize different aspects of our collective work, and there are many other excellent approaches to building horizontal and inclusive governance that we have never tried. What I can say with confidence is that we are in a staggeringly better place than I ever imagined in my initial years at IU, working with my head down and my door shut. In dream hampton’s words: “Better is Possible”

This is the third of three parts of a series on culture change at University of Indiana Geography.

Read Part 1          Read Part 2


Please note: The ideas expressed in the AAG President’s column are not necessarily the views of the AAG as a whole. This column is traditionally a space in which the president may talk about their views or focus during their tenure as president of AAG, or spotlight their areas of professional work. Please feel free to email the president directly at rlave [at] indiana [at] edu to enable a constructive discussion.

    Share

Building Vibrant Departmental Cultures, Part Two: Creating a culture of respect and care for students, staff and faculty

A group of students explores geography with using their sense of smell over drinking glasses filled with liquid.
A group of students explores geography with their senses. UI Geography now prides itself on its environment of trust, respect, and creative inquiry.

Photo of Rebecca Lave

My previous column began the story of Indiana University Geography’s near-death experience in the 2010s and our decade of collective work to transform the department. Walking away from the traditional physical/human-environment/human geography division was a key aspect of that transformation, but creating a culture of care and respect and developing more transparent, horizontal governance were key components as well. In this column, I focus on how we created a more respectful and supportive departmental culture; I will address governance in the third column in this series.

Building respectful and supportive practices

I don’t know when the culture at IU Geography broke down; by the time I arrived to interview in spring 2008, the level of intellectual and personal disrespect within the department was intense enough that I nearly refused the job. In the end, I accepted, thinking that if I could keep my head down and my office door shut the cultural issues would not affect me. But as anyone who has been in a toxic department knows, bad behavior has surprisingly pervasive effects.

Our departmental meltdown in Fall 2011 had many long-term causes, but the immediate catalyst was two physical scientists declaring during a meet-and-greet with our new Dean that their situation was untenable because of teaching load and the presence of social scientists, and that they had independently begun negotiations to merge our department into the Geology Department. The rest of us were shocked and horrified. Our new Dean was unimpressed by our collective dysfunction, to put it mildly.

The year that followed was deeply stressful and upsetting. We were nearly forced to merge into two other units and multiple faculty moved to other departments or left IU. In the end, when the Dean decided to support our continued existence and gave us hires to rebuild, one of our highest priorities was building a more supportive and respectful culture. That took many different forms, but I’ll highlight three here.

The first was a commitment to respectful speech. We asserted, and then reinforced, the importance of treating everyone in the department (students, staff, faculty, colloquium speakers, etc.) respectfully in person and in email. This included an explicit acknowledgement that people in the department employed very different models of scholarship, and that all were worthy of respect.

Secondly, we changed department practices to better support each other’s lives outside of work. The point was not to recast the department as family, but to acknowledge that we are all human: some of us have care responsibilities; others have chronic illnesses or other vulnerabilities. We acknowledged and tried to support that in multiple ways, such as stepping in to cover classes when someone had surgery and moving the timeslot for our colloquium earlier to accommodate childcare pick-up times.

Perhaps the most important of these changes has been our collective commitment to only hire people who treat others well (the “no a**holes” rule).  This rule has been challenged occasionally when one or more of us was starry-eyed about an exceptionally strong CV; so far, though, we have held the line. Those of us who survived the meltdown at IU, or who came in from other departments with toxic cultures, are all too aware of the value of collegiality.

Meal trains as a metric

There are many metrics for assessing attempts to build more supportive and respectful department cultures; mine is meal trains.

Meal trains are a form of mutual aid in which people cook and bring meals to someone who needs support. When my daughter was born at a difficult time for my family, our community in Berkeley brought us dinner every other night for six weeks, getting us through the worst of the transition. Meal trains are powerful symbolically, drawing the recipient into a network of care. They are also powerful practices: there is nothing like preparing a meal with your own hands to ground you in care for another.

When I arrived at IU, there was no tradition of meal trains; frankly, there was only a 50% chance that another faculty member would say hello if you ran into them in the hall. I made a few solo attempts to get the tradition started, but it wasn’t until my colleague Justin Maxwell’s second child was born that we had our first departmental meal train. At first, we organized them only for faculty; then we expanded them to staff. I opened a bottle of bubbly when we voted to extend meal trains to graduate students. The hierarchies in academia are no joke, but it is possible to extend care, respect and appreciation within them.

The topics I’ve called out here are part of a broader set of endemic inequities within geography, both inside and outside the academy, that stem from a range of factors including unequal job security; race, ethnicity, gender, class, and ability; differences in institutional status, including research v. teaching institutions, but also Global South v. Global North; and the increasing dominance of English as the language of academic and professional life. These inequities play out in different ways. Some, like pay, job security, and career support, are obvious. Others, such as the expectations around who will do take on the work of mentoring and advising, and who is allowed to make ground-breaking scholarly contributions v. who is expected to demonstrate the relevance of others’ theories, are less obvious. As you think about how to make your own department a more respectful and supportive place to work, I strongly encourage you to check out AAG’s initiative with the University of Colorado Colorado Springs to identify and strengthen cultures of care within the geographic research community.

This is the second of three parts of a series on culture change at University of Indiana Geography.

Read Part 1

Please note: The ideas expressed in the AAG President’s column are not necessarily the views of the AAG as a whole. This column is traditionally a space in which the president may talk about their views or focus during their tenure as president of AAG, or spotlight their areas of professional work. Please feel free to email the president directly at rlave [at] indiana [at] edu to enable a constructive discussion.

    Share

Building Vibrant Departmental Cultures, Part One

Dr. Olga Kalentzidou teaches a hybrid course on the geography of Indiana’s foodways. Credit: Kayte Young, WFIU Public Radio
Dr. Olga Kalentzidou teaches a hybrid course on the geography of Indiana’s foodways. Credit: Kayte Young, WFIU Public Radio

Photo of Rebecca Lave

A familiar story with an unfamiliar ending

The Geography Department at Indiana University Bloomington was nearly dissolved in the early 2010s. Neither enrollments nor research productivity were an issue. Instead, we were almost taken down by personal distrust and conflict, and by intellectual disagreements between physical and human geographers.

Thus far, this story is likely familiar: many of the departments that closed over the last few decades were plagued by similar cultural and intellectual issues. What’s different is the next part of the story: a decade later, IU Geography is a cohesive, thriving department. We have built a culture that values and respects a broad range of geographic scholarship, and works to support students, staff and faculty professionally and personally. Our reputation on campus as a collegial, highly functional department has given us credibility and administrative goodwill, and drawn FTE (Full-Time Equivalent) transfers from less collegial departments.

There are many paths to this outcome, but in this and two upcoming columns, I want to share a few things that were most effective for us, in hopes one or more of them might be useful for you:

  • Re-organizing to avoid traditional divides among physical/human-environment/human geography;
  • Building a culture of respect and care for students, staff and faculty; and
  • Creating more horizontal and transparent policies and administrative structures.

Organizing around problem areas rather than traditional geographic divides

With just seven faculty members remaining when the dust settled in 2012, we had a choice about how to move forward: either to specialize in a way that capitalized on the strength of some faculty but would force others out of the department, or to build an interdisciplinary vision that capitalized on all of our strengths. Happily, we chose the latter option.

Our goal was to make the interdisciplinary character of geography a strength rather than a source of conflict. We wanted there be clear intellectual benefits for our hydrologist to have a political ecologist of water in the department, and vice versa. To do that, we abandoned the classic physical/human-environment/human geography divide and instead arranged ourselves by problem areas: cities, development and justice; climate and environmental change; food and agriculture; and water resources (we also have a methods-focused cluster in GIS/RS). In each area, the goal was to include a range of courses and faculty that spanned physical, human-environment, and human geography.

Long-term payoff

No one here at IU Geography would argue that the process of overcoming traditional disciplinary divides is complete. In some areas (e.g., climate and environmental change) we were able to achieve our interdisciplinary vision immediately. In other areas (e.g., cities, development and justice) it took until this year to have the full range of faculty.  But we have succeeded in building ties that bridge physical/human-environment/human divides via grant proposals, courses, and interdisciplinary committees for graduate students. Our undergraduates now draw connections between our classes that we had never considered ourselves.

While we still keep an eye on the balance of faculty across the traditional physical/human-environment/human divide, organizing by topic drops the tension level in hiring decisions and graduate admissions. The topic structure is also far more legible to undergraduates, who may care a lot about food and agriculture but have no investment whatsoever in the divide between physical and human geography.

As a long-term champion of integrating critical biophysical and social research, I will close by noting that IU Geography’s topical organization brings our departmental structure in line with the world around us. If you believe in the core claim of the Anthropocene that our world is now inextricably eco-social, then our intellectual structures should be, too.

DOI: 10.14433/2017.0141


Please note: The ideas expressed in the AAG President’s column are not necessarily the views of the AAG as a whole. This column is traditionally a space in which the president may talk about their views or focus during their tenure as president of AAG, or spotlight their areas of professional work. Please feel free to email the president directly at rlave [at] indiana [at] edu to enable a constructive discussion.

    Share