Guest post by new Fellow, Mandy Golman, Assistant Professor of Health Studies at TWU:
As tired as I was when I got home on the night after our first convening, I was excited to start writing. I wrote until midnight and then told myself to go to sleep. 12:30 A.M.: I turned the light back on to add a few more things. Lights off. 1:00 A.M.: I thought about a few more things to add. Lights on! 1:30 A.M.: I decided I better get some sleep. Lights off (finally). As tired as I should have been, it was such an energizing experience!
As we launch year three of our Public Voices fellowship at Yale University this month, we wanted to take a moment to return to the words of Daniel Colon-Ramos, a fellow from our Yale Public Voices fellowship last year, who wrote about the difficulties and rewards of being a public scholar. In particular, we were struck by his description of how he first encountered “science,” and the notion of expertise:
When I was a child growing up in Puerto Rico, I was interested in science but did not know any scientists, nor did I understand how science was done. My father worked in the newspaper business and would occasionally find articles and opinion pieces written by Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan that had been syndicated and translated into Spanish by local newspapers. He would cut them out neatly and bring them home as special gifts. I was allowed to read them only after I had finished my homework. Those short essays were great treats—windows into a wonderful but inaccessible world of possibilities and discovery. Back then I often wondered why scientists did not write more for the public.
Photos and story by Maura Flaherty. Flaherty is The OpEdProject intern. She will be graduating from Medill in June.
“What do you think about when you think about your legacy?”
This was an opening question in the final and fourth convening recently of The Northwestern Public Voices Fellowship.
Michele Weldon, director of the fellowship, and EJ Graff, fellowship leader, began the day in Northwestern’s Hardin Hall with discussion of the fellows’ greatest accomplishments and challenges over the past year. Those included 121 examples of thought leadership, including 62 published opeds, as well as appearances on television and radio, panel participation, expert quotes in media and more from the selected 20 NU faculty members involved since November 2012.
Both Weldon and Graff invited the 16 fellows present to share stories about personal success. Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach discussed her oped linking pollution in St. Louis to a cancer cluster there. Laura Beth Nielsen told the group about getting her article “What is Terrorism?” published in Al Jazeera following the Boston bombings.
After reviewing the content of the year’s Media Gatekeepers schedule of conference calls with editors from the New York Times, Christian Science Monitor and other outlets, Graff reviewed key elements of Twitter as a tool for contagion of ideas.
Weldon presented guidelines and tips on public speaking from keynotes to panels. She also advised on blogging. Both leaders then discussed pitching to outlets and proceeded to lead a Pitch Slam with each fellow pitching a great idea to the group, who acted as editors.
During their lunch break, the participants surprised Graff and Weldon with Op-Ed Project t-shirts customized for the group with “That’s Ridiculous!” printed on the backs. All the fellows plus the leaders donned the shirts. The faculty members performed an improvisational skit thanking the leaders for their constant encouragement and dedication.
Graff and Weldon then showed a video made of the fellowship by documentarian Mary Olive Smith who filmed interviews with the fellows during the third convening.
Later the fellows grabbed large markers and paper to participate in a game called Why Do You Do What You Do? (WDYDWYD) Fellows had 10 minutes to brainstorm one-sentence answers to the powerful question. Some answers included: “Because personal narrative has value and integrity;” “To advocate for those who do not have a voice;” and “Because my skills can help improve lives.”
During the last activity of the convening the fellows wrote about their own enduring legacies- where they saw themselves in one, 10 and 30 years from now. The leaders and fellows said goodbye with a congratulatory toast to the all of the group’s successes.
Debra Houry is a force to be reckoned with. A 2012 OpEd Project Public Voices Fellow at Emory University School of Medicine, we asked her to talk with us about how public thought leadership, and what she’s learned as a fellow with The OpEd Project PVF, has transformed her professional outlook and practice. Here is what she had to say:
Why is it important for physicians to engage in public thought leadership?
The public is increasingly using non-traditional sources for medical and public health-related information, yet physicians are largely not engaged in these venues. I was one of these physicians until recently. I now realize that if we do not speak up for our patients, then others who are less knowledgeable will make decisions that could be detrimental or have unintended consequences. In this age of social media, Joe the Plumber and Honey Boo Boo are talking about issues, so it only makes sense that we as physicians get out there as well and inform the public about healthcare issues.
How has public thought leadership changed your professional practice?
Before the OpEd Project, I was focused on my research and publishing in traditional academic journals. Although most of my scholarship does have community impact such as my kiosk screening for partner violence and intervening after traumas to prevent post-traumatic stress disorder, I was not communicating these findings to the general public.
Tell us about an op-ed you wrote and its impact.
I work on the frontlines of our healthcare system as an emergency physician in an inner-city hospital. I’ve been very active in my specialty organizations, but not engaged with legislators or other decision-makers. While watching election coverage this fall, I became frustrated with Romney’s comment about emergency departments as the source of health care coverage for all. I work in a busy hospital and I see patients all the time with complications of chronic conditions that could have been prevented with early and regular access to healthcare. I realized it was important for me to respond to Romney’s quote and I wrote my first-op “Emergency Rooms are on Life Support”. Afterwards I received many supportive emails from physicians as well as positive comments from laypersons applauding the piece and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine sent it out to its 6,500 members. Similarly, after watching the media coverage of a domestic violence homicide, I found my voice and wrote “Domestic Violence: A Month of Awareness but a Daily Occurrence” about the need for prevention of partner violence, accurate media reporting, and for the importance of supporting the Violence Against Women Act. My third piece was a bit more controversial on racial disparities in health care and I received many negative comments. Instead of discouraging me from writing again, I realized that I had made an impact with the readers and perhaps made a few rethink their positions.
That’s incredible! And, how does public thought leadership compliment your scholarly work?
Since writing these op-eds, my eyes were opened to the importance of having a public discourse. I’ve now given several lectures on public scholarship and physicians including keynote presentations at the New England Society for Academic Emergency Medicine meeting and the American Physician Scientists Association national meeting. I’ve followed up these talks with a column in Injury Prevention on “Public Scholarship and Injury Practitioners”. And, I’m trying to pay it forward. In the class I’m teaching now the final assignment is an op-ed. My hope is to get 18 op-eds out in the public venue to further the discussions after the academic coursework has ended. Although I’ve never been a quiet person, this venue had helped make my voice even louder and more powerful. Thank you for opening my eyes and my work to public scholarship.
Debra Houry, MD, MPH, is Vice-Chair for Research and Associate Professor in the Department of Emergency Medicine at Emory University School of Medicine and Director of the Emory Center for Injury Control. You can follow Houry on Twitter: @debhoury
Christiana Peppard, Assistant Professor of Theology, Science and Ethics at Fordham University
Two weeks ago, we wrote about Christiana Peppard, an OpEd Project Public Voices Fellow at Fordham Univeristy, being the featured educator in Microsoft’s educational blog, “Daily Edventures”. This week, Claudia Garcia-Rojas, our Social Media Fellow, asked Peppard to share some additional insights on her expertise and on the need for public scholarship.
Tell us something about your field that, we, the general public don’t know?
I am an expert on fresh water, with a focus on economic globalization and environmental ethics in an era of climate change. I am also an expert on theology and science. From those realms, most people don’t know what an aquifer is and why it’s important for fresh water supply! I like to say that an aquifer is the most important thing you’ll never see. (You can watch her TEDEd lesson on fresh water below.)
[People also don’t know that] Darwin loved beetles, and he was also (through his mother and through marriage) heir to the Wedgewood pottery fortune—yes, that’s right, Wedgewood as in contemporary wedding china. In other Darwin factoids: The Catholic Church affirms Darwin’s insights about evolution but wants to maintain that human uniqueness and soul are not necessarily part of the evolutionary process.
Tell us about an article that you authored and its impact? For example, did it lead to any collaborations?
The most immediate impact came from an article I published with the Washington Post, “For Catholics, a new kind of pro-creation,” which was the impetus for an invitation to be on the Melissa Harris-Perry show on MSNBC. And the more that I publish on water, the more I’m called as an expert source, for example by the Christian Science Monitor and CNBC.
Peppard was a recent guest on the Melissa Harris-Perry show on MSNBC
Do you feel there is an ethical need for public scholarship? If so, why?
Public scholarship is an ethical need in at least two directions.
First, enlightened self-interest: it’s empowering to write for a broad audience, because it’s an opportunity to dialogue with non-specialists in ways that can forge interesting connections. It’s a terrifying process at first—rejection hurts, and many online commentators are jerks!—but it does bear fruit, both in terms of thick skin and eventual publication. It also challenges us to write accessibly and clearly without losing academic integrity; that’s a skill that goes far beyond public forums and can improve the caliber of our scholarly discourse, too.
Second, contribution to the shape of public opinion: There is room for many more voices at the table of public discourse—especially thoughtful, nuanced opinion, which happens to proliferate in scholarship. We traffic in detail and nuance in our scholarly publications and in our teaching; why not in other venues, too? Clear thinking on a public level happens when we can mobilize (in a clear, accessible way) the insights that come from longstanding attention to detail, careful nuance, and rigorous analysis. Moreover, for women and scholars of color to take a public stand is a powerful model for younger generations that the world need not always be defined by the people who inherit vast amounts of money or political power.
Peppard is published in many outlets. You can find two of her Huffington Post op-ed articles here.
Left of Black is a weekly webcast hosted by Duke University Professor Mark Anthony Neal. This week he talked with Francesca Royster, OpEd Project Fellow at DePaul University, about her new book, “Sounding Like a No-No: Queer Sounds and Eccentric Acts in the Post-Soul Era”.
