Programmatic Changes

  1. A new “works in progress” section of the newsletter allowing PEWS members to post and receive feedback about ongoing research. This would be modeled after successful examples in other sections (e.g.¬†
  2. Expand the mentoring program to link junior with senior faculty.
  3. Add a teaching award, alternating each year between a faculty teaching award and a graduate student teaching award (introduced this year).
  4. Add an award, given every two to three years, to the member doing the most to advance the scholarship of members from underrepresented groups.

5 thoughts on “Programmatic Changes

  1. There are many ways for PEWS to support members in our university work and in other related work that we do. Becoming a mentor, participatory action researcher, or community board member would bolster our academic work in research, teaching and university service. In PEWS, I’d like to see stronger relations of mutual engagement and support, including through mentoring. I’d like to see more senior, junior, and grad-student members debating, interacting, carrying out collaborative projects, and enjoying free-wheeling conversations with each other during conferences, special sessions, meetings, and social hours. We have a lot to learn from each other. By being there for each other, we can help prepare our students to do worlds-systems analysis, a critical window for seeing and understanding our transforming world. Building friendships across new lines would provide support to under-represented groups in all our disciplines. In addition, both because many learners and teachers would benefit from world-systems knowledge and PEWS members would stretch their understandings of the intellectual world by learning from new members, PEWS would benefit from actively reaching out to, recruiting, and retaining members who are from historically Black colleges and universities, colleges that serve Hispanic and indigenous communities, four year colleges, community colleges, and schools that are outside the United States.

    1. I love the suggestion re: actively reaching out to members from HBCUs, HSIs, indigenous communities, community colleges etc!

      I have a question. Are there specific things that Council can do to promote the kind of interaction you’re describing. It’s a great vision and I’m just wondering about the logistics re: cultivating it.

  2. PEWs members and all PEWS committees can decide how to cultivate connections with students and faculty who are at culturally diverse schools. Individuals at diverse schools may be very interested in world-systems inclusive work. They could become our future majors, graduate students, colleagues, and fellow participants in PEWS. This would enrich our conference sessions and the collaborative research and learning that we do. Actually, many of these cross-school connections are being built now. This is because more PEWS faculty members and graduate students are teaching and studying at diverse schools in the United States and in other countries. This is a time to think about what we’ve been learning as we work at diverse schools. We PEWs members need to recognize the cultural and intellectual value of our work in these difficult times. This can give our PEWs-related work a new dynamism as we learn to enhance our academic programs and perhaps even build movements for public education.

  3. Two more proposals that have been thrown around:

    (1) Have open section session sat the ASA. With rotation of leadership, they will come to reflect the diversity of the discipline.

    (2) Consider hosting a section-sponsored conference on some regular basis. There is a world-systems conference held annually now, but it’s not technically connected to the section and we have zero say over its content.

  4. I am baffled by the repeated calls for “open sessions.” The important thing is the process and the real openness.

    In a diversity training session at my university some time ago, a number of social scientists and I questioned the natural science professor leading the session for his advice that all departmental searches be “open.” The problem is that if there are structural or personal barriers to entry for members of excluded groups, an open call can be (or perceived to be) just as exclusionary as a specific call. It would be better to have a middle ground that neither says we want someone (like my colleague’s new PhD student “Joe”) who does this very specific sub-field NOR says we are “open” to anyone (but will actually still choose my colleague’s new PhD student “Joe”). The metaphor can be applied to PEWS in creating session calls that are defined neither too narrowly in world-systems terms nor completely “open” (and still assumed to be narrow).

Leave a Reply to T. Dickinson Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * logo