Click on the topics or scroll down:

Meeting held: December 6, 2002 from 11:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. at the office of the Associated Colleges of the Midwest, Chicago, Illinois

Present

Welcome and Introductions

Dan Sack welcomed the Task Force and made introductions. He then outlined the agenda for the group and noted that the Global Partners Project has been extended through 2005.

Faculty Development Seminar in Russia (Summer 2002)

Dan distributed the schedule and participant list from the most recent seminar. He noted that the facilitators' report-by Michael Hemesath and Diane Nemec Ignashev, both of Carleton-is on the Global Partners website, and a summary of the evaluations is also available. The evaluations were fairly positive, and the facilitators were commended for their good leadership. The evaluations indicated that a number of the participants were very productive in their research.

Gitta Hammarberg shared her experience as a participant in the seminar, saying she felt that the participants were a good interdisciplinary mix. Gitta stated that opening the seminar in Gelendzhik was the perfect starting point; it was a great location with excellent facilities and good space for a "new" group. In Gelendzhik, the seminar met with ACM colleagues from a branch of Kuban State University and listened to presentations and lectures by political scientists and local experts. Gitta was positive about the group, and noted that they had good discussions after the lectures and meetings.

When the group traveled to St. Petersburg and Moscow, they had time for both research and individual exploration. The group had terrific guides in both cities, and the majority of the group participated in the excursions instead of pursuing their individual research. Gitta felt that the primary reason for this was the difficulty of finding library time because of summer hours. Nevertheless, some of the participants were able to make good contacts in both cities.

Gitta felt that Diane and Mike were excellent facilitators and were very flexible in terms of people's interests, which allowed for spur-of-the-moment excursions and other adjustments to the schedule. Gitta felt that it was very helpful to have directors with regional contacts.

Elizabeth Hayford asked if most of the seminar participants were competent in Russian and if language competency is important for the experience. Gitta responded that most of the participants did have some Russian language skills, but that it's not necessary for someone to have a successful experience, and it's very important to expose non-Russian speakers to the country.

Uliana Gabara asked Gitta to elaborate on the projects. Gitta explained that each seminar participant worked primarily with his/her host family and was placed with a host who had experience in the participant's field of interest. For example, Gitta's host mother was very immersed in spa culture, so Gitta was granted access to places where she wouldn't normally be allowed. The participants spent time throughout the seminar working on their projects; their work was supplemented by the excursions.

Uliana also asked about the seminar's formal lectures, and Gitta commented that the lectures were sufficient and that no one in the seminar would have wanted more formal "teaching." Additionally, the majority of the group didn't need a formal introduction to Russia or a similar lecture because of prior familiarity with both the country and the language.

Todd Armstrong asked if the seminar participants spent much time as a group. He noted that the evaluations from the 2001 Czech Republic seminar in Olomouc reflected a need for "group only" time. Gitta explained that the group had time "alone" in Gelendzhik; they got to know each other, lived together, ate together, and had time to talk and share their experiences. Dan added that this group was a little different than the group that went to the Czech Republic because so many of the participants spoke Russian and were more self-sufficient.

Todd said he was specifically wondering if the group had some sort of wrap up conversation, and Gitta stated that she wasn't sure people would have been ready to comment on the overall experience at the end of the seminar. However, she felt that the time the group spent traveling together throughout the seminar gave everyone a chance to share experiences. They also had a round table at the end to present their projects.

Uliana wondered what the project expectations should be after a two-and-a-half week seminar in an unfamiliar location and added that it might not be reasonable to expect all of the participants to complete research. Gitta suggested that expectations must be variable because, in the case of this past seminar, some participants came with projects they'd been working on for a significant period of time while others, like Gitta, started a new project, which, of course, is not done. For example, expecting publication at the end of a two-week seminar is ridiculous. On the other hand, participants are able to gather plenty of course material. She noted that extending the seminar is valuable for some people, and this happens through travel grants and other independent research when individuals stay after the seminar to continue their work.

Barclay Ward asked who the Task Force wants to attract to the seminar: people who are well on their way with a research project and familiar with the area, or people who are new to the area and want to build connections through research or a project. He added that it's difficult to imagine that someone falling into the latter category would enter the seminar with a well-articulated research project that they could work on for six hours a day. For a group of "newcomers," a seminar with more round tables and group activities would be more practical.

Dan noted that the TF has historically promoted the seminars as an introduction to the area, and travel grants as an option for those more experienced in the area. Elizabeth added that the Russia seminar had a small applicant pool with a mix of experience among the applicants. Thus, it would have been difficult to gear the seminar entirely toward beginners.

Barclay suggested that the TF ought to require a project, but the most important consideration for those with varying degrees of experience is the format of the seminar. Beginners need more group time and the more experienced participants need more project time. Elizabeth agreed and noted that this mix of experience was the case during the 2001 Czech seminar and will likely be the case during the 2003 Czech seminar.

Uliana suggested that the TF might need to be more specific when soliciting applications; if the seminars were clearly pitched specifically for people who want to experience a new area of the world, it would be easier to encourage certain people to apply. Tom Newlin noted that the mixture of experience is part of what makes the seminars so valuable; it would be ineffective to design the seminar for beginners only.

Tom suggested that entering the seminar with a project idea focuses participation in the seminar even if it's not possible to produce something; the seminar should be viewed as a first step. Gitta and Helen Scott agreed with Tom, and Helen added that, in order to reap the benefits of mixing experts and beginners, a seminar needs to include a good deal of time for discussion and sharing. Gitta added that a mix of participants leads to the opportunity for insights as well as assistance. The seminars have always been directed at people at all levels of expertise; coming to the seminar with a project in mind doesn't mean you get only one thing out of the seminar.

Faculty Development Seminar in Czech Republic (Summer 2003)

General Goal and Participants

Dan opened discussion on the upcoming seminar in the Czech Republic and explained that the seminar will be focused on science and environmental issues. The TF decided last year that a seminar for faculty in the sciences would be valuable, and there was an excellent response, with 31 applicants from the three consortia. Dan distributed a chart showing the participants chosen by the selection committee (Todd, Uliana, Tom, and Myron Levine). The committee selected 17 participants (four women, 13 men) and put six others on a waiting list. Elizabeth noted that the consortial ratios of those selected are proportionate to the applications from each consortium, and Todd added that the ratios are also proportional for gender balance. Dan added that the committee selected all of the physical scientists who applied, and all of those selected made some connection to environmental studies in their application.

Pamela Hollie, one of the GLCA applicants, was selected in a non-traditional capacity. Pamela, who is an affiliated scholar at Kenyon College as well as a journalist and consultant, will be in the Czech Republic on a Fulbright, so the committee decided to use her as a resource for the seminar. She's not a faculty member at a GP institution, so she will be invited to participate as she sees fit, and GP will pay only her in-country expenses related to seminar participation.

Gitta asked how the selection committee handled applicants who are temporary hires, and Dan answered that the committee rejected faculty who are clearly short-term. However, if the committee had a sense that the applicant has a future at the institution, they were included in the seminar. The committee tries to find out as much as possible about the status of temporary applicants, often through conversations with Deans or others. In regard to temporary applicants for travel grants, this past summer was slightly different because the TF elected to give money to every applicant. There were some misgivings about this philosophy because the goal of travel grants (and seminars, for that matter) is for the faculty to take their experience back to their GP campus (as opposed to a non-GP campus).

Gitta asked the selection committee about their reasons for rejecting those they did, and Dan explained that the primary reasons were a failure to tie their project interests to environmentalism and/or short-term status at their institution. Helen noted that Grinnell had a librarian apply for the seminar; she was not accepted. Helen wondered if a librarian has applied before and how one might fit into a seminar. Dan stated that nothing precludes a librarian's participation in a seminar, but in this particular case the librarian's application was not environmentally oriented and her project is better suited for a travel grant. Elizabeth added that a librarian's participation would be welcome, as librarians are working with students more than ever these days.

Gitta wondered if any staff members have ever applied to participate in a seminar, and Dan responded that this has not happened. Todd suggested that, although this is labeled a faculty development seminar, maybe staff and administrators should be included in the offering since the GP focus is on internationalizing the entire campus. Dan asked if the expanded offering would be the case with travel grants as well, and the response was mixed. Uliana suggested that travel grants might be useful for administrators, such as directors of international programs. Elizabeth noted that the rationale behind an application would have to be clearer for a staff member, but drawing an institutional connection is what is important.

Gitta added that faculty and librarian co-projects could be a focus for future travel grants. Todd mentioned that a faculty member traveling with a librarian to visit a student program might be a good way to make connections. Helen suggested allowing a librarian and a technology specialist to apply jointly for a travel grant. Uliana asked if faculty-student research is ever proposed for the travel grants, and Dan explained that it is in the travel grant announcement as a possible collaboration, but no one has ever applied under those auspices.

Seminar Plans

Myron Levine (2003 seminar facilitator) opened the discussion on the seminar, which will take place in June, will last two-and-a-half to three weeks, and will be centered in Olomouc. Myron plans to bring in local activists and experts to do the teaching and participate throughout the seminar to insure that he is a facilitator and not a lecturer. He intends to include trips to Prague and Hungary, and he will schedule excursions tied to themes such as interest in national parks, deforestation, the Black Triangle, and the Budapest dam project. He intends for the seminar to follow the model of people learning from experts and site visits as opposed to spending six hours in a library. He noted that the schedule will depend, in part, on the participants' contacts as well their strengths in different areas, as the participants will help teach each other.

Dan noted that this group of seminar participants has a lower level of expertise than the group that went to Russia in 2002, and Myron added that only a few of the participants have Czech language experience. Elizabeth stated that this makes local support more important, and Todd suggested Dan Maryk as an excellent resource. (Dan is a faculty member in Olomouc, and he served as the academic coordinator of the Czech seminar that Todd directed in 2001.) Todd added that it might be possible to set up a meeting with Dan as one of the pre-departure activities. Also, all of those who work with the ACM Central European Studies Program at Palacky University are English-speaking, which is very helpful; Jitka Herynkova (in Palacky's International Liaison Office) was tremendously helpful to Todd.

Regarding pre-departure plans, Myron is thinking of having the participants read a book entitled Truck Stop Rainbows, which is about environmentalism under, and immediately after the fall of, Communism in the region. Other readings could be available for those who need background about the Czech Republic and/or Hungary. Uliana suggested setting up a blackboard or website as soon as possible so the participants can start talking to each other well before they travel. Elizabeth asked Myron if he intends to have a pre-departure meeting as other seminar facilitators have in the past, and Myron responded that he is willing to do so. Dan explained that it has been useful for the participants of the past two seminars to meet in Chicago for one day; this provides time for introductions and allows people to begin to flesh out their research projects. Myron mentioned that during the pre-departure meeting he would like to show "Vida's Man of Marvel," a film he called a "soft-core" introduction to the seminar showing old Communist attitudes on environmentalism.

Travel Grants

Reports on Previous Grants

Dan distributed reports on the 2002 travel grants, and noted that he is still working to get final reports from all of the grant recipients. Nineteen applications were received last year, and, due to extra money in the budget, the TF decided to fund them all, at a maximum of $2,400. Elizabeth added that it was possible to award so many grants because people were funded at different levels (per their own budgets) instead of awarding everyone a flat grant of $2,400. This seems to be a good practice because it enables more applications to be funded.

Summer 2003
Dan distributed the announcement for 2003 travel grants and invited any revisions or comments. The deadline is February 15, 2003. Dan also asked for any suggestions regarding the selection criteria, wondering if it's more important for GP to fund research or curricular projects. He also raised the question of funding applications from people who have previously received a grant.

Larry Penrose mentioned that he knows of two artists at Hope who would like to go through the Russian museums. However, they haven't applied for a grant because they're afraid to travel alone; they would like to find an experienced group of people with whom they could travel. He wondered if it might be possible for these two to apply for a travel grant to be used when the ACM Russia Program is in Moscow and St. Petersburg, affording them instant traveling companions. The TF agreed that this was an excellent idea. Dan noted that this announcement suggests collaborative projects, which raises the question of how the TF might help pair people or how an individual might find a specialist in his/her area of need.

Uliana shared her sense that the field of Central European/Russian Studies is in a bad state; with this in mind, she would like to see a focus on curricular projects in an attempt to rejuvenate courses and increase student interest in the field. She added that there are research funds available through the colleges and other organizations, so research needs are covered. She feels it is urgent to try and reach students and non-specialists.

Dan suggested that the announcement could stress a preference for student-faculty projects. Uliana agreed that this would be a positive step, but added that an emphasis could also be placed on comparative projects or on courses other than Russian or Czech language (i.e., art, folklore, history, etc.). Barclay suggested that the focus include Europeanists who have never done anything with the east. He agreed with Uliana that curricular impact is where the grant payoff is strongest and that curricular projects have the fewest opportunities for funding.

Dan noted that last year there were a number of proposals with a very clear research focus but low academic curricular payoff. Todd asked if it would make sense to change the announcement to privilege curricular or comparative projects. Barclay thought this might make sense, but added that the criteria shouldn't be inflexible; general quality is the most important criterion. Gitta commented that research projects cannot necessarily be separated from curricular projects. Research has an effect on curriculum and should be supported, especially at this time when a number of special humanities funds have dried up.

Barclay suggested that the question of a curricular project versus a research project has little to do with the project itself and a great deal to do with the project's payoff. The TF should look at each applicant's plans for the outcomes of their project; if there are no curricular plans for the results, the application should be a lower priority for funding. Gitta reiterated her feeling that the announcement needs to also prioritize research projects to encourage applications from junior scholars.

Tom noted that if the focus on curriculum is going to be one of the key criteria in selecting who is awarded a grant, it must be clearly outlined in the announcement. Dan asked if the announcement should explicitly state that priority will be given to funding curricular projects. Tom noted that any decent research project will have some curricular impact, and he has no problem asking people to stress the connection between the two in their applications. This would be a nice way to express a balance between research and curricular projects. If an application is for a research project, the curricular implications of the project should be articulated. Barclay suggested adding a bullet in the section on applying for grants, stating: "Describe your project and state its impact on your teaching."

Helen wondered if it would be possible for the TF to do more with the emphasis on collaborative projects. For example, an individual on a campus might not be able to find a collaborator without help. Maybe the TF could help make connections.

Helen also raised the possibility of highlighting faculty-student research projects when the grants are advertised, and Dan noted that some of the responsibility for highlighting certain aspects of the program rests with those who distribute the announcement on each campus. Gitta noted that it seems like the right people are getting the information; there has been an increase in the number of applicants, if nothing else. Based on the response to the Czech seminar, Dan agreed that word is definitely getting out.

Tom speculated that maybe interest was piqued by the fact that the seminar was so focused. He noted that the announcements (especially for the travel grants) tend to be a little dry; the TF could spice them up and suggest collaboration in order to get more applicants. For example, Larry suggested the following: "Have you been discussing Crime and Punishment with a colleague for the past 25 years? Take the Dostoevsky tour!"

Future Plans

Dan asked the group to think about what the TF wants to do next over the next several years of the Project and how they might build more connections between the participating institutions. Should the focus be on additional seminars or, possibly, a symposium?

Elizabeth noted that, with the start of the second phase of the GP grant, the TF might consider a shift in focus from individual faculty to institutions as a whole and the way the GP institutions are participating in the field of international education. A symposium on the future of the GP regions in the curriculum is one idea that has surfaced. Dan suggested that the concerns Uliana raised earlier about the future of the field of Central European/Russian Studies would make an excellent symposium involving curricular issues, off-campus study issues, etc.

Todd noted that the exchange should flow both ways. We are always sending people to other countries; we need to bring foreigners here as well; not just scholars and teachers, but students too. For example, he would like to see a student from Palacky University studying at an ACM school. Helen mentioned that Todd is currently trying to do a joint course with Palacky over the internet.

Todd and Helen then explained a program Grinnell has with visiting international scholars. Students can take a 2-3 week mini-course with a visiting scholar as a regular part of the curriculum. Elizabeth thought that this model could be interesting for GP, and she wondered what structures could make it feasible. Maybe instead of teaching only at Grinnell, an international visitor could do a "tour" and teach mini-courses at three GP schools.

Todd noted that the cost of a visitor for three weeks is approximately $6,000-$7,000. Dan mentioned that the 42 colleges are very different resource-wise, and some of them might be able to take better advantage of this type of program than others. Elizabeth commented that the nice thing about the Grinnell mini-course model is the reduced expense, which would be shared among the participating institutions.

Tom noted that Oberlin is doing something similar to Grinnell's mini-courses. They find that it's difficult to get people for an entire semester, so they have one-week courses. The downside is that these courses take a lot of administrative work.

Todd wondered if it would be worth thinking of a model to bring in a visitor to do a series of short-courses at a number of institutions. Maybe it would be possible to invite someone from Palacky University or Kuban State University. Elizabeth suggested that it might make sense to put together a small planning group from the TF to develop a model in order for GP to fund this idea. One of the questions that would have to be answered is whether different structures and calendars on the campuses would make this especially difficult.

Todd and Uliana both spoke about student programs on their campuses, and Barclay commented that this sharing about programs would be a good conversation to have on a larger scale. Elizabeth noted that this sharing of ideas links to the Best Practices Task Force. They are currently trying to develop ways for people to get together to discuss the same types of things.

Uliana suggested that if there is another faculty development seminar, it should be in a country that hasn't been covered by the previous seminars. Tom added that he's a little uncomfortable with the seminars being tied down to Krasnodar and Olomouc even though they're great places.

Elizabeth noted that she had assumed the next seminar would be in Russia, but that could change. Todd suggested a seminar that spanned the two regions: Central Europe to Russia, Warsaw to Moscow. Elizabeth commented that the more you travel, the more complicated the logistics become.

Helen noted that ACM took the GP Centers it did (Central Europe/Russia) because of student program links; ACM wanted to build something lasting. The regional centers were very important to where GP was going based on the grant proposal. Barclay asked if it violates the grant to move away from these centers, and Elizabeth stated that the commitment is to the region and the curriculum. Helen added that it takes a long time to build connections with an institution; there is a lot invested in the GP connections in Krasnodar and Olomouc.

Barclay asked how many more seminars are planned, and Elizabeth noted that there is one scheduled for 2003 and it would be possible to do seminars in both 2004 and 2005. A domestic symposium has also been discussed as a replacement for the final seminar.

Barclay mentioned that since the TF is only talking about the possibility of one more seminar after summer 2003, it might not be worth jeopardizing or breaking the relationships that have been built. Tom noted that the TF isn't talking about getting rid of the ACM/GLCA language programs in Olomouc and/or Krasnodar; the question is whether those two locations should set the focus for the GP seminars.

Uliana felt that there is some stubbornness about staying in Krasnodar that is problematic, and Tom added that the purpose of the seminars isn't to build faculty-to-faculty bridges with scholars in these locations and that a seminar would be more exciting somewhere else in Russia. Helen noted that the idea of building these bridges was part of the hope in the original GP proposal, but felt that this might not have been successful.

Elizabeth asked the group if it would be a good model to have a seminar in 2003 and 2004 and a symposium in 2005. Myron stated that if the goal of this initiative is to attract new faculty to the study of these regions, seminars and the promise of travel are the way to go.

Dan suggested that some of the issues mentioned earlier in the discussion, such as the future of the field, would be interesting to a larger group. Todd suggested a gathering that brings some of the specialists used by the seminars together at a central location for a symposium; this would also bring former seminar participants back together. Gitta suggested that the TF should see how the seminar in Olomouc goes this summer, do one more in 2004, and wait to see what makes the most sense for 2005.

Elizabeth concluded that the consensus of the TF is to do a seminar in 2004 in Russia, but not necessarily in Krasnodar. Dan noted that a facilitator for this seminar will need to be found in late winter or early spring of 2003; the TF should determine a rough theme for the seminar in order to begin advertising for a facilitator.

Uliana suggested "The Arts in a Changing Economy and Society" as a possible theme. Myron offered the theme "Ethnicity and Identity in Russia and the NIS." Dan noted that having some sort of core idea (such as the arts) allows the TF to make a focused approach when soliciting applications, both for a facilitator and for participants. He asked the TF to submit suggestions for a theme over the next couple of weeks. Larry suggested "Arts and Theatre" as a general theme because it would attract a lot of people who haven't had the opportunity to participate in a seminar before.

Future Meetings

Dan recommended that the TF meet in a year to talk about what to do in 2005. He asked how the TF should move ahead with the ideas about short-term faculty visitors/exchanges. Elizabeth suggested the formation of a small working group to explore options, with another meeting of the full TF late in the spring. She added that the TF will need to move ahead quickly with this idea because implementation will take a lot of lead-time. Barclay, Todd and Larry volunteered to be the working group.

The meeting adjourned.