Engaging Humanities Undergraduates in the Intellectual Life of the Research University
Joan S. Bennett, Professor of English and Coordinator of Undergraduate Research,
University of Delaware

Introduction
Preparing for Newsweek Magazine’s fall 2002 college issue, a reporter phoned the University of Delaware’s Undergraduate Research Program requesting referrals to undergraduates who had chosen to attend our school because of the opportunity to collaborate in conducting front-line research with faculty in the humanities. From contacting dozens of research universities, the reporter had learned that involving undergraduates in faculty research is probably the most powerful pedagogy available for fostering the cognitive and personal development of students (Boyer Commission 1998; Bauer, K.W. & Bennett, J.S. 2003; Zydney, A.L. et al. 2002). She had also learned that while many institutions could provide her with the names of students in a science or engineering discipline who had participated in research, this experience is still a rare one for students in the humanities. The University of Delaware was able to put her in touch with majors in English, foreign languages and literature, philosophy and art history, who said that they had chosen to attend UD because they anticipated engaging in research collaborations with faculty in their disciplines. These students had entered a university culture informed by student-faculty research collaborations, not only in the sciences and engineering, where virtually all faculty regularly work with undergraduates in their research, but also in the arts, humanities and social sciences, where over two-thirds of the faculty do so.

Increasingly university presidents and provosts are requesting academic deans and department chairs to offer research opportunities to their majors. While faculty in the sciences and engineering have responded, humanities faculty are understandably surprised by such a request. Yet, what is being asked for is not impossible, can even be made to be desirable, indeed, can become a valued form of faculty as well as student development.

The Undergraduate Research Commitment: Issues for Humanists
The question is how can humanities research faculty engage undergraduates in the same intellectual discovery process that causes those faculty members themselves to pursue their careers at a research university? For scientists, the time-honored way to share with students the experience of generating new knowledge is the research apprenticeship, an activity that has become more widely practiced in American universities since the 1980s and 90s with the creation of undergraduate research programs. Since humanists don’t have labs or research groups, however, they tend to assume that their research has to be a solitary affair. Directing a senior honors thesis can be made into a research collaboration if the faculty member requires the student to investigate a topic that he or she intends personally to explore. Yet humanities faculty often allow students to propose topics unrelated to their own research and then find themselves expending a sizeable amount of time teaching independent studies, unlike their colleagues in the sciences who genuinely collaborate with their students, directly sharing the trials and the excitement of their own ongoing research life. With the exception of models described below, humanities faculty rarely invite undergraduates into their own ongoing research projects.

For more information contact Joan Bennett, Professor of English and Coordinator of Undergraduate Research, at jbennett@udel.edu, or see the Web site: http://urp.udel.edu

Works Cited

Bauer, K.W., and J.S. Bennett. 2003. Alumni perceptions used to assess undergraduate research experience. The Journal of Higher Education. 74(2): 210-230.

Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities (1998).

Zydney, A.L., J.S. Bennett, A. Shahid, and K.W. Bauer. 2002. Faculty perspectives regarding the undergraduate research experience in science and engineering. Journal of Engineering Education. 91(3): 291-297.

University of Delaware Joan Bennett James M. Dean, Professor of English

In 1980, with the help of a FIPSE grant, the University of Delaware inaugurated a program through with faculty who were willing to engage undergraduates in their research programs could receive assistance needed to make such collaboration optimally fruitful. Our model was MIT’s “UROP,” the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program begun in 1969 by the late Margaret MacVicar, professor of physics and education. What we took from the MIT, more importantly than program details, many of which could not apply to our state-assisted university, was the program philosophy, which considered undergraduate research to be primarily a form of faculty development, from which students benefit.

Over the past twenty-five years, faculty have worked out the answers using guidelines that are tied to two features: (1) credit awarded in any department for undergraduate research, and (2) summer research stipends. For humanists, perhaps our single most important guideline is the one that requires a faculty-student team to demonstrate a strong link between the student’s work and the faculty mentor’s own research. It is not that we want to discourage faculty altruism per se but that we don’t want burnout. We want faculty participation year after year, and we want students to be mentored from the faculty members’ own deepest strengths. What can destroy undergraduate research in this model, especially in the humanities, is confusion of research with independent study. An undergraduate asked to explain the difference between research and independent study offered this observation:

“In an independent study, I usually want to explore a topic that is already well examined by scholars in the field but is not covered in a conventional course. The professors with whom I have done independent study have been comfortable with the topics and guided me through them. Research has been very different. I have been working in an area that relates in important ways to my professor’s research but which he has not explored.”

Undergraduate researchers, facing unanswered questions, understand that they cannot receive answers to these questions from their faculty but that they can find in their faculty experienced investigators with whom they can join in the quest. This kind of collaboration strongly rewards the students who participate, as reflected in these recent comments:

English: “There is no way that undergraduate research can really compare to standard courses: there is so much more room in research for self-motivation, initiative, alternation, and truly deep study that is just not possible in a standard course.”

Philosophy: “Prior to this experience, I was studying the philosophies that interested me, but without really focusing and forming a well developed opinion on a matter. However, I now find myself with an actual position that I can adequately defend. New ideas that are truly my own seem to be pouring out of my head.”

Art History: “The desire to research and learn this summer has not come from wanting to get a good grade in a class, but to tread on territory where no one else has been before and truly discover something new. In the process, it is very motivating and empowering to be able to talk with a professor as an equal, to even debate certain hypotheses and ideas for one’s research.”

History: “My original plans changed, as the research opened and closed doors unexpectedly. In this transformation, my advisor was always ready to make suggestions and guide my studies, yet he gave me the right to make all the choices and direct the project as I saw fit (he said all along, ‘It’s your baby’). I hope I’ve helped him a fraction as much as he helped me.”

Humanities faculty who have not collaborated in research with undergraduates usually have questions about how such collaboration can work. In what follows, one faculty member describes his experience and that of three students.

Ownership and Undergraduate Research

Persistent questions concerning undergraduate research in the humanities include the following:

• Can undergraduates engage in meaningful research in the humanities?
• How does undergraduate research differ from research in a course that requires a research essay?
• What benefits should a sponsoring faculty member expect?

At the Southeast regional meeting of the Reinvention Center on March 5, 2004, representatives from the University of Delaware Undergraduate Research program provided some answers, at least on the Delaware model. Joshua Goldman and Sarah Newhouse were present from the English Department, along with their mentor, James Dean; Anne Marie Steadman was present from the Philosophy Department, but her mentor, Fred Adams, chair, could not attend.

In the Delaware model for undergraduate research, an eligible student locates a mentor who is willing to share her research interests; in turn the student agrees to research the mentor’s field while gathering material for her own research projects, on the apprentice model. An important element in the UD model is the summer research program, where students engage in research for ten weeks while meeting with the faculty mentor, usually on a weekly basis. The summer program is not inexpensive since students are given stipends, and participating faculty must agree to invest considerable time supervising the students. There are, however, rewards for both students and participating faculty.

• In answer to the question whether meaningful research can be done by undergraduates in the humanities, the UD students provided evidence that it can be done and that it happens regularly at Delaware. One reason is doubtless in the program structure, which features benchmarks and schedules at every turn. The three students told different stories about their experiences in the program, but each engaged in substantial research for their mentors and for themselves. Annie even has published articles with her mentor, Fred. Although publication with the mentor is not typical in the humanities, it shows what can be achieved with persistence and resolve. Fred regularly publishes articles with his undergraduate students.
• Faculty and administrators who attended the Washington, D.C. meeting questioned the students about the undergraduate research program. They wondered how this research could differ from the kind of research involved in completing a research paper assignment in a course. The students answered this with the issue of “ownership.” As Annie observed, in a course the professor “owns” the research process, and the student tries to figure out what the professor wants from detailed instructions. In the undergraduate research program, the student “owns” the topic and the method of research along with the faculty member. In courses, a student usually does not create new knowledge in the process of writing a research essay; in the UD undergraduate research program, new knowledge is the goal of each project.
• Administrators of undergraduate research programs at other institutions report humanities faculty resistance to taking on undergraduates because they do not anticipate benefits for doing so. The cynical phrase for this process is “rewards of the heart,” meaning a faculty mentor receives little or no compensation. But perhaps that sentiment needs to be reexamined, particularly in light of the goals of the Reinvention Center and the current focus on the importance of undergraduate education in research universities. Working with undergraduates on research projects, according to Jim Dean, “reminds him of why he decided to become a professor in the first place.” There can be a significant difference between working with a graduate student on her self-selected project and collaborating with an undergraduate on a mission student and faculty member select together.

As came out in discussions after the students gave their presentations, there may be problems in some institutions involving merit pay or recognition of the efforts of faculty members who engage in undergraduate research. At the University of Delaware, some faculty—notably Fred Adams of Philosophy—can integrate the mentoring of undergraduates with significant publications. The goal of undergraduate research in the UD model is to increase scholarly productivity and satisfaction as well as to bring undergraduates into the research culture.

Experience of three undergraduates in the UD Undergraduate Research Program:

Josh Goldman approached Jim Dean about a possible research project involving the influence of the classics on the writings of Geoffrey Chaucer. The topic was too broad, as Jim immediately realized, but because Josh was so accomplished in the classics, Jim believed Josh would come to the same conclusion soon enough. Jim suggested some initial readings for Josh, and they met in weekly sessions thereafter and explored the primary and secondary literature in those meetings. Eventually Josh determined that he wanted to explore Chaucer’s The Legend of Good Women, a work Chaucer apparently abandoned just before he began work in earnest on The Canterbury Tales. Jim encouraged him in this pursuit because, although Jim was not ready to publish on this work at present, he sought a better understanding of it for teaching and possible research purposes. Josh was fascinated with the retellings of classical stories in that work; and he wanted to understand Chaucer’s motives for crafting a failed project between his successful Troilus and Criseyde and his much-admired Canterbury Tales. Josh’s initial attempts to speak and write about his scholarship were successful; his main point centered on Chaucer as a writer in certain traditions, making use of classical stories but inflecting them in unique ways. (The legend of Cleopatra, for example, focuses far more on Antony than Cleopatra, complete with a lengthy battle description.) Yet because of his exposure to theoretical issues in another course, Josh changed the focus of his work to the figure of the god of Love and to audiences for the LGW. Josh realized that the god of Love—a character in the LGW—was a poor, even a crude reader of Chaucer’s writings. Making good use of current scholarship on Chaucer’s actual audience—the specific people Chaucer addressed and those who read and commented on his writings—Josh arrived at an original contribution to scholarship on the Legend of Good Women as an experiment in shifting audience expectations based audiences for his previous kinds of writing and his newer models (those who will read his Canterbury Tales with interest and sympathy). In this enterprise Josh read and absorbed far more than he would have in a regular seminar. His reading for the project was both wide and deep.

Sarah Newhouse asked Jim’s advice about her interests. (Jim is the English Department’s liaison for the Undergraduate Research program.) Like many students, Sarah had questions about how the program works and how she should proceed. She said she was chiefly interested in the imaginative writings of J. R. R. Tolkien, especially The Lord of the Rings. Knowing the research interests of the English Department faculty, Jim was fairly certain that the closest match for her interests in the Department was Jim himself. Knowing Sarah’s interests in graduate school, Jim also believed he needed to discourage Sarah’s pursuit of Tolkien’s imaginative writings. He felt that English Departments—even those committed to popular culture and cultural studies--were not ready to entertain scholarship on The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings. Jim certainly was not ready to publish on Tolkien’s writings, although he had taught The Lord of the Rings in a freshman course at a previous institution. So Jim asked Sarah to compromise on her research interests, requesting that she explore a project to be entitled “Tolkien the Medievalist.” Tolkien was a world-class medievalist, who produced a major essay on Beowulf and the standard edition of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Tolkien, after all, read broadly in the Norse eddas and sagas to produce his imaginative writings. For his own purposes, Jim sought a deeper understanding of Tolkien’s life as a professor at Oxford—how he lived, his struggles as a mentor, and so forth. These details would enrich Jim’s teaching and possibly his scholarship. In the Undergraduate Research program at UD, students frequently must alter their research ambitions to match or accommodate those of their mentors, or they must work with a second-choice mentor because their favorite mentor is otherwise engaged. Sarah agreed to the suggested changes and began her research. She read a great deal, particularly Tolkien’s letters and journals (and the writings of Christopher Tolkien), and she met regularly with Jim about this research. After about a month, she reported that she believed Jim was quite wrong about the place of Tolkien’s imaginative writings in the academy. She pointed out all the medievalists and scholars who wrote extensively on Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings. She also noted that the international Congress on Medieval Studies (Kalamazoo, Michigan) sponsored seven sessions devoted to Tolkien. (The first of these is entitled “Beowulf Comes to Edoras: Tolkien as a Gateway to Medieval Studies I.”) Moreover, a book has just appeared entitled Tolkien the Medievalist—the same title as the original, working title for Sarah’s research. (From this we knew we were on the cutting edge in some ways.) Several scholarly journals welcome essays on Tolkien, and Sarah is now completing an article she intends to submit to one of these journals.

Annie Steadman visited Fred Adams unsure of her research interests, but Fred had in mind several projects a student might work on. By the summer of 2003 they had decided they would publish two papers in collaboration. These papers involved phone correspondence with a Princeton academic whose arguments they were refuting and consultation with another professor who had researched extensively in the area of intentional action. In a review of her summer work, Annie said she felt she “was contributing to the profession (if only in a modest way) as well as cultivating [her] skills.” She summed up the value of her experience by writing: “Instead of adhering to a set curriculum [as one would in a regular course], Dr. Adams invited my ideas and suggestions even as far as some final significant additions to our paper prior to submission. He displayed a great deal of patience and faith in working with me, even when I suggested that we completely restructure the paper (which we did).” Three of Annie’s collaborative papers with Fred are now being published in scholarly journals

Further examples of how humanities faculty structure their research collaborations with undergraduates can be found on the UD Undergraduate Research Program web site at http://urp.udel.edu/ahpage.html. The faculty referred to in this “spotlight” can be contacted at:

Fred Adams: fa@udel.edu
Joan Bennett: jbennett@udel.edu
Jim Dean: dean@english.udel.edu

University of Washington Janice DeCosmo, Assistant Dean of Undergraduate Education and Director of the Undergraduate Research Program Jill McKinstry, Head of the Odegaard Undergraduate Library, University of Washington Libraries

Engaging Undergraduates In Scholarly Work: Two Initiatives at The University of Washington: Summer Institute in the Arts and Humanities and Library Research Award for Undergraduates

Four years ago the University of Washington’s Undergraduate Research Program (URP) surveyed faculty to determine how scholars in different disciplines thought about undergraduate involvement in research. The survey was specifically motivated by a desire to find new ways to stimulate research opportunities for students in the humanities and discursive social sciences. It found that while all faculty viewed inviting undergraduates into their research enterprise as largely a teaching function, faculty in the sciences and humanities have different perceptions of the benefits they and their students derive from a research experience. Faculty in the sciences often cited important benefits such as students’ contributions to publications and the ability of undergraduates to tackle high-risk and potentially high-gain projects that they were unwilling to allow graduate students to attempt. In contrast, their (fewer) counterparts in the humanities primarily cited the personal satisfaction gained from mentoring bright students. Further conversation with faculty in the humanities revealed that, while there was some open-ness to the idea of engaging undergraduates in scholarly work, most were uncertain about how to collaborate with their students in a mutually productive way. Humanities faculty with whom we spoke also expressed a reluctance to take on additional (teaching) responsibilities, particularly while venturing into unfamiliar pedagogical territory.

It became clear that in order to stimulate more interest in undergraduate research in the humanities, the University would have to provide incentives to faculty to experiment with research-oriented modes of learning that would both prepare undergraduates and provide opportunities for them to engage in scholarly activity. Further, reinforcing a lesson learned at the University of Delaware, faculty must realize benefits to their own scholarly work and professional development as they provide mentoring to undergraduates taking their first steps into scholarly inquiry.

Since that time, the UW has developed two programs that provide significant incentives to students and faculty to embark on scholarly projects together: The Summer Institute in the Arts and Humanities and the Library Research Awards for Undergraduates. These initiatives also allow the University to highlight this enterprise. The resulting publicity and recognition of students and faculty has led to an increase of opportunities for students both within these efforts and elsewhere on campus. Below, we describe briefly each of these programs, including their outcomes, and provide perspectives from faculty and undergraduate participants.

Summer Institute in the Arts and Humanities

Following the conversations with humanities faculty described above, in 2000-01, the Undergraduate Research Program in collaboration with UW’s Simpson Center for the Humanities, created the Summer Institute in the Arts and Humanities. Modeled on Research Experiences for Undergraduates programs in the sciences and engineering, the Summer Institute gives students in the humanities the opportunity to immerse themselves in scholarly work for a summer term. The Summer Institute, which centers on a different interdisciplinary theme each year, enables participants to develop an original idea related to the annual theme into a substantial paper or project, using the research methodology of their major discipline. They are guided in their scholarly activity by Institute faculty. Each summer thus far the Institute has engaged four faculty members from a variety of disciplines to design the summer program and work with the students.

The Summer Institute serves 20 undergraduates per summer. They are selected through a competitive application process. For the students, the Institute is a full-time credit-bearing experience—and one likely to extend beyond the summer term since most students finish final drafts of their papers or projects during the month following the close of the Institute. Students sign up for ten credits for the 8.5 weeks of the summer term. In addition to the credit, they receive a $3,000 scholarship. Because the students enroll for full-time credits, this model can be self-sustaining, except for the student scholarships, which at the UW are provided by a university endowment. How important are the scholarships? Very important to maintain the diversity of the students who participate! While there is evidence that many students would sign up for the Institute if there were no stipends, without a stipend, participation would be limited to those who did not need to earn money over the summer. Since UW is a large state university, this would rule out a substantial number of students.

The faculty leaders are paid at 50% for the summer quarter. The Simpson Center also provides a planning stipend for faculty during the preceding academic year for program design.

Although the Summer Institute was originally intended to focus solely on the Humanities, during the first planning cycle, the title was broadened to include the arts. This change was made to reflect the interdisciplinary nature of the Institute and the observation that many of the unifying themes that were identified included arts, and indeed other disciplines as well. The past three Institutes have included faculty from the humanities (English, Near Eastern Languages and Literature, Art History, Comparative History of Ideas), arts (Music and Digital Arts and Experimental Media) and the discursive social sciences (History, International Studies, Women Studies).

One of the great challenges in creating the Institute each year is identifying a group of faculty who are interested in experimenting with a new pedagogical approach, as well as expanding their own research expertise to include perspectives of other disciplines as they relate to common themes. The Simpson Center for the Humanities is engaged in nurturing those thematic research collaborations, and therefore was a natural partner in creating this new program. Faculty and students of the humanities often see their work as a solitary enterprise; the Institute creates a scholarly community where participants can learn from others’ perspectives and ideas while developing their own original projects.

Although the Institute itself only admits 20 students each summer, it attracts dozens more applicants; the Undergraduate Research Program assists students not selected for the Institute to seek out other research opportunities. Final presentations and Institute publications also draw attention to the contributions of these undergraduates to scholarly research. These mechanisms all work together to raise the demand for undergraduate research in the humanities, and increase the commitment of faculty to providing opportunities for these experiences. One measure of this change is the percentage of students from arts, humanities, and discursive social science disciplines who participate in the UW’s annual undergraduate research symposium. In 2001, 27 of the 196 presenters (14%) at this event were from these disciplines; in 2004, 92 of the 399 student presentations (23%) featured research in the arts, humanities, or discursive social sciences.

What are the outcomes for faculty?

While the primary motivation for developing the Summer Institute was to increase undergraduate participation in humanist scholarship, the model that has evolved also provides an important faculty development opportunity. By cycling faculty leaders from different academic departments through the Institute over a number of years, we can learn more about how undergraduates might enrich scholarly work in a variety of areas. Equally important, we can use the program to create interest among our faculty for creating opportunities for undergraduates to share in the knowledge-making enterprise. As these leaders return to their departments, they share their enthusiasm and experience with colleagues and students. In addition, the teaching and research collaborations stimulated by the interdisciplinary program enrich the faculty leaders’ professional lives. More than three quarters of the twelve faculty who have thus far participated in leading the Institute have continued to engage with undergraduates in research (two now hold primarily administrative positions), and several have continued to collaborate with their faculty colleagues in a variety of ways following the summer term.

I want to thank you for a remarkable summer. Participating in the 2004 Summer Institute was the most significant experience I’ve had in my 12 years as an educator… Programs like the Summer Institute are especially important for faculty interested in incorporating more undergraduate research into their teaching repertoire. Although many faculty in the arts and humanities may want to do this, most probably do not know how to go about it, not having had this opportunity in their own undergraduate education… Too often we set aside undergraduate research money only for science students. As someone who has studied in the sciences and humanities, I can testify to how difficult it is to receive mentored guidance…. I can see how the Institute could be instrumental in changing the culture of undergraduate education so that many more students will have this opportunity in regular classes. I know that I will now incorporate more project-oriented material in my classes. – Phillip Thurtle, Comparative History of Ideas, Summer Institute Faculty, Trauma, Time and Memory, 2004

How have students benefited?

Students who are eager to participate in the Institute see this opportunity as a way to focus on a research project in a supportive and rich environment and without the distraction of other classes. They receive close mentoring from Institute leaders, and they begin to see themselves as practitioners in a discipline, rather than consumers of knowledge. As with other intensive research programs, they gain familiarity with the discourse of their discipline and develop an appreciation for scholarly methodology –for the essential knowledge and skills needed to do the painstaking work of developing and supporting a scholarly thesis. They also experience the excitement and sense of fulfillment that comes with developing mastery and charting a new course. One third of the students who have participated in the Summer Institute have continued to work on their projects post-Institute. Below, comments from past participants highlight some of the important benefits of this program for students.

In some ways I was a bit intimidated by the idea of “scholarly research.”… Further, the actual research expectations were high, and I found my own processes of note taking, remembering and analyzing painfully slow. But the weeks gave way to drafts that soon became concrete analyses of a subject that I found interesting... While I didn’t know what to expect from the research process, I learned more than I can put down on paper. The professors, the feedback of other students, and the shifts that occurred in my own mind elevated my passions and pushed my ability to think critically to a level that I didn’t know I was capable of reaching. –Participant, summer 2003

This was the best experience of my college education thus far. I learned more than I thought possible. I made great friends and created a piece of work that I am really proud of. –Participant, summer 2003

I have never witnessed such passion in research as I did this summer – in my professors, in my classmates, and in the authors/theorists that we studied. Arts and humanities research, as I understand it now, is closer to the human experience than I could have imaged research to be. –Participant, summer 2004

Intense, exhausting, exhilarating, fertile and inspirational. I will be drawing from the research I accomplished in this Institute throughout my graduate and postgraduate career. Thanks for allowing me this experience. –Participant, summer 2004

For more information on institute themes, faculty, and schedules and for collections of students’ work, see the following websites:

Summer Institute in the Arts and Humanities at the University of Washington
http://www.washington.edu/research/urp/sinst/index.html

Textual Innovations (Summer, 2002)
Student papers available at:
http://www.washington.edu/research/urp/sinst/pubs/2002/index.html

Culture and Globalization (Summer, 2003)
Student papers available at:
http://www.washington.edu/research/urp/sinst/pubs/2003/index.html

Trauma, Time, and Memory (Summer, 2004)
Overview and additional information available at:
http://www.washington.edu/research/urp/sinst/inst/2004/index.html

Library Research Award for Undergraduates

In 1942, Zora Neal Hurston described research as “formalized curiosity. It is poking and prying with a purpose. It is a seeking that he who wishes to know the cosmic secrets of the world and they that dwell therein.”(Dust Tracks on a Road: An Autobiography)

The University Libraries, in cooperation with the Undergraduate Research Program, sponsored the first annual "Library Research Award for Undergraduates" competition in 2003-2004. Funded by the Kenneth S. Allen Library Endowment and modeled after the “Library Prize for Undergraduate Research at Berkeley,” the Award recognized University of Washington students who produced significant research projects requiring use of the library, its resources, and collections. Awards of $1000 were presented to six undergraduates for exceptional research in English, History, Anthropology, Landscape Architecture, Psychology, and Environmental Studies. In addition, 12 of the 52 student participants received an honorable mention award and a $100 prize for their projects. The funds for the Awards came from a University endowment.

Why offer a prize?

The mission of the University of Washington Libraries is to enrich the quality of life and advance intellectual discovery by connecting people with knowledge. Offering a Library Research Award is an ideal way to support this mission, for it recognizes the coordinated effort of the faculty, the student and the library in research and in communicating and sharing their discoveries. It also highlights discipline-specific methodologies. For the humanities, fine arts, and discursive social sciences, this program provides a public forum for discourse and discovery. Talking and writing about the research process gives some relief to what one colleague called, “the invisibility of the long distance humanities researcher.” As one student put it:

I became worried that my thesis was no different from so many other essays I had consigned to the “college work” box I stashed deep in my closet. When I learned about the UW Libraries Undergraduate Research Award, I jumped at the opportunity to gain a wider audience for my research. I was happy just to have a committee of people read my work. –Award Winner, 2004

At the University of Washington today there is no one information literacy course that is required of all students. Nor is there a general education requirement that specifically covers the content of information literacy. Information literacy has long been a priority of the Libraries and there are several excellent departmental initiatives, but it has been challenging to successfully implement broad-based efforts throughout the campus. The Library Research Award for Undergraduates program helped take up the challenge in a different context. Rather than focus on teaching “library skills” in a vacuum, it is more important for students to learn about research methodology in a specific discipline, and to learn also how to communicate that process and results to others. Some faculty and students are beginning to understand that the process of research in many respects is as important as the information gathered. Since this process will be repeated throughout a lifetime, the abilities gained through a well-mentored research program will define and empower lifelong self-directed learning. It has also been great to nurture the relationship between the librarian, the faculty member, and the student:

I must say that history enjoys an extraordinary relationship with the librarian, who has been a wonderful supporter of our students and a guide to the library for them and faculty. She also encouraged our students and faculty to submit essays. So while we are proud of our students' achievements and our faculty contributions, we also are indebted to librarian's tireless support.

What did the students have to do?

All UW undergraduates who are enrolled in a UW course or in independent study are eligible to apply for the Library Research Award. In addition to submitting a project with a complete bibliography of resources and a letter of support from a faculty member or instructor, applicants must write a 500-750 word essay describing their research strategies, and their use of library tools and resources. They had to demonstrate unusual depth or breadth in the use of library resources and collections (printed resources, electronic databases, primary resources, secondary resources, materials in all media, microfilm included.); they had to show exceptional ability to find, select, evaluate, and synthesize library resources and to use them in the creation of a project showing originality or having the potential to lead to original research in the future; and, finally, they had to provide evidence of significant personal knowledge and growth in the methods of research and inquiry --a tall order.

In the first year, there were 52 submissions, drawing from a variety of departments and courses, including: American Indian Studies; Art History; Biological Anthropology; Comparative History of Ideas; Communication; Comparative Literature; Drama; English; Environmental Studies; Forest Resources; History; International Studies; Interdisciplinary arts & sciences; Landscape Architecture; Math; Nursing; Oceanography; Political Science; Psychology; Slavic Languages and Literature, and Sociology. Unlike the participation in many research programs for undergraduates at universities, the majority of submissions for the Library Research Award for Undergraduates came from the social sciences (61%) and humanities (28%), with a much smaller submission rate in the sciences (11%). This may be due to the structure of many courses in the humanities and social sciences, which require a research paper or project. Another reason may be that some departments in these areas provide a progression of courses in which students work multiple quarters on their projects. While many of the proposed projects described traditional uses of the library, there were also unexpected projects, such as an actor’s packet of research about the setting of a play for a class in the drama department, or a DVD movie on the impact of cultural differences for communication.

The ability to see connections between disparate works of art and literature, to puzzle out their mysteries and reveal their secrets through close analysis, is a characteristic of some of the best literary criticism. The Library Award for Undergraduate Research hopes to take this often private, scholarly inquiry to a larger audience. In contrast with many other university research initiatives, during our first year we had more humanities and social science entries than we did entries in the natural, physical, or health sciences. We hope that the program will continue to grow and become an integral part of curricular planning in departments, as courses and requirements are built around a continuum of abilities and transferable research skills. No matter what the discipline, there are tremendous rewards for the student and faculty in undertaking creative and independent projects, fueled by research.

The following list demonstrates the range of topics and disciplines of our first group of recipients of the Library Research Award for Undergraduates.

Winners of the 2003-2004 Library Research Award for Undergraduates
Nicolaas Barr (Senior), “Man must be himself”: Freud's Masculine Identity of Autonomy, 1872-1901
Mentor: Professor John E. Toews (Comparative History of Ideas)

Jennifer B. Glass (Sophomore), Mid-Winter 1894
Mentors; Professors David C. Streatfield (Landscape Architecture) and Paul Quay Oceanography)

Joanne Ho (Senior), Pockets of Poverty in a Fast-growing Economy: Quantifying Market Shares in Rural Southwest China
Mentors: Professors Kathie Friedman (International Studies) and Stevan Harrell (Anthropology)

John R. Mitchell, IV (Senior), To Create a New and Different Life: The Development of an Upper-Class Suburb in Bellevue (WA), 1940-1960
Mentor: Professor Emeritus Fred J. Levy (History)

Rachel Shields (Senior), Recurrence of Things Past: The Strange Likeness of Beowulf and the Old Man and the Sea
Mentor: Professor John Coldewey (English)

Carrie E. Spradlin (Senior), Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep in Curecanti National Recreation Area, Colorado: Home Range Estimation and Potential for Population Restoration
Mentor: Professor Kenneth J. Raedeke (Forest Resources)

For more information about the Library Research Award for Undergraduates, we invite you to visit our Web site: http://www.lib.washington.edu/researchaward/

Northwestern University Carl Smith, Director, Program in American Studies, Franklyn Bliss Synder Professor of English and American Studies and Professor of History

Northwestern University Seminar and Conference on Human Rights: U.S. Policy toward AIDS in the Development World

Research in the humanities can involve several different kinds of useful projects, in addition to papers. One example is a series of conferences that originated in an interest in the study of human rights on the part of a group of undergraduates at Northwestern University. Eager to bring together students on campus and throughout the country to discuss this topic, these students decided to organize a national conference on human rights, featuring presentations by experts and active discussion among delegates. The result was the first Northwestern University Conference on Human Rights, titled "Human Rights and American Responsibility," which took place in April, 2004. The conference examined United States policy toward several major international human rights crises, such as the 1994 Rwandan genocide and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans during the 1990s. General Romeo Dallaire, the former commander of U.N. forces in Rwanda, and Ambassador Richard Holbrooke gave the major addresses, and students from some thirty different campuses, in addition to many members of the Northwestern community and the general public, gathered for the event.

This conference was so successful and such a rich experience for the students that they were determined to organize another one. After preliminary discussions, they decided to devote the second Northwestern University Conference on Human Rights to the subject of U.S. policy toward AIDS in the developing world. As part of their work in preparation for the conference, twenty students, with the support of the Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences, created a for-credit seminar on the conference theme. The course's purpose was to ask experts on the Northwestern faculty to direct the students to the best publications in various fields pertinent to U.S. policy toward AIDS in the developing world, and to meet with them to discuss these readings. Nine faculty members from diverse disciplines participated in the course, talking on such issues as AIDS and prescription drugs, AIDS and fertility, and the relationship between domestic and foreign AIDS policy. In the meantime, the students on the conference board planned for the event, first by studying and doing extensive research on the various issues surrounding AIDS policy, then by determining the specific conference themes and developing the conference program, and, finally, by identifying and inviting the featured speakers and panelists. They also publicized the conference and made all the arrangements.

The result of their efforts is the second Northwestern University Conference on Human Rights, which will take place on April 28-30, 2005. The conference, which is free and open to the public, will bring together distinguished academics, activists, and policy makers from around the globe. In addition, it will provide a forum for some seventy undergraduate delegates from thirty-seven universities and colleges throughout the United States and thus have an impact that extends beyond Northwestern University. The delegates, chosen from more than 150 applicants, learned about the conference through the publicity efforts of the student organizers. The student organizers also prepared a delegate guide full of readings; the guide was based on their own extensive research and discussions.

Stephen Lewis, the United Nations Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, will open the conference with an address on the efforts of the U.N. and other organizations to help more than 25 million people on the African continent who are living with HIV/AIDS. The following morning, Dr. Bernard Kouchner, co-founder and former president of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning organization Doctors Without Borders will discuss the global effects of the HIV/AIDS pandemic and the urgent need for cooperation between national governments and non-governmental organizations. Later in the day, Dr. Mark Dybul, chief medical officer and assistant AIDS coordinator in the U.S. Global AIDS office, will speak on the Bush administration's AIDS policy. The conference will include four panels (two each day) that will feature experts from various organizations as well as the Northwestern faculty discussing the topics of medicine, policy, women, and the media. Each speech and panel will be followed by smaller discussion groups among the delegates, and there will be meetings with all of the panelists and speakers. The conference will end with a policy simulation and discussion among the student delegates.

The organizing base of the conferences is the Northwestern Program in American Studies. Both conferences have been made possible with substantial support from administrators, schools, departments, and programs at Northwestern.

Professor Smith, advisor to the conference board, considers the conference “the most remarkable undertaking I’ve been associated with in over thirty years at Northwestern in the scale of its ambition and the mix of seriousness and idealism in its goals.”

For a complete schedule of conference events, visit http://www.nuchr.org/.