Unifying Undergraduate Research and Teaching:
The
History and Philosophy of the Depauw Undergraduate Honors Conference
Kent
E. Menzel, Ph.D.
Sheryl W. Tremblay, Ph.D.
Communication
Arts & Sciences
Greencastle,
IN 46135
(765)
658-4492
Paper presented at the 1995 annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Antonio.
Back
to Honors Conference Home
Introduction
This
essay traces the history of one institution’s efforts to celebrate the
accomplishments of undergraduate scholars.
For 21 years, the DePauw National Undergraduate Honors Conference for
Communication Arts and Sciences has gathered top undergraduate students and
exemplary scholars in communication studies together for an intensive weekend
of scholarly dialogue. The
various goals of the conference include networking and the chance to share
ideas with leading scholars, but all other goals are subordinate to the
primary goal of supporting undergraduate research.
We will first clearly define what the conference is today before
elaborating on the events which precipatated its beginning.
Then, we will shift our focus to the development of the conference over
21 years, finally specifying its principles as they exist today.
The Conference
DePauw’s
Honors Conference currently begins with a national call for papers which is
distributed to much of the membership of the Speech Communication Association
(SCA) by direct mailing, the rest of SCA through Spectra,
and to other teachers through electronic networks such as the Communication
Research and Theory Network (CRTNET). Typically,
this call will bring 80 to 100 student papers from schools across the country.
Each paper is read by two members of DePauw’s faculty and rated on a
basic scale of 1 to 3, with plusses and minuses allowed.
A rating of “1” indicates a paper of exemplary quality, worthy of
inclusion in the conference. A
“2” indicates a fine paper, but one which should receive secondary
consideration. The lowest rating
of “3” is reserved for papers which require revision.
Rating discrepancies are resolved by the conference director’s
assessment of the problematic paper. This
rating process is quite successful in identifying the top group of 30 papers.
Along the way, many fine student contributions do not lead to
invitations; we regret that structure and cost concerns do not allow us to
offer a conference which could bring all
deserving students together. DePauw
students must go through the rating process along with all other applicants,
though no more than three are typically accepted.
Every
year we invite two visiting scholars from what can be generally termed
“rhetoric” and “speech communication” backgrounds.
Both classifications are liberally defined, but both are clear in their
intended focus. We try to ensure
that at least one of these scholars has a background in quantitative research.
Every other year, the conference alternates between inviting the third
visiting scholar from a “theater” or “mass communication” background,
again broadly defined. These three scholars will each be grouped with 10 of the
visiting students roughly along the lines of their mutual interests.
Once
invitations have been sent and all have arrived at DePauw, we open Friday
morning with an all-campus convocation, using this lecture by one of our
visiting scholars as a way to involve the entire campus in the conference.
Following the convocation, the visiting scholars and the students get
together for lunch and some general discussion of the lecture.
Then, scholars and students meet for the first of three, three-hour
closed sessions devoted to their research discussions.
Each group will remain intact for the remainder of the conference.
Typically,
students spend the first session presenting their research and receiving
feedback from the visiting professor, who is the only individual who has had
prior access to all papers. This
session is followed by a dinner meeting at which one of the visiting
professors will speak. Over the
evening, students are able to read each other’s papers, which are
distributed during the first session.
The
first session on Saturday is typically spent with student responses to each
others papers, all guided by the visiting professors.
The morning session is again followed by a luncheon and speech. In the afternoon, some of our visiting professors have
included more student responses, while others have preferred to provide their
own final analysis of issues which have been raised.
At all times, the work is collaborative and the efforts are shared
among all participants. The
second session on Saturday is followed by dinner and the third scholar’s
speech.
The
final event of the conference is a Sunday breakfast session which brings all
students and visiting faculty together to discuss any issues which remain
open. The students get a chance
to ask questions about graduate school, life in academics, and other career
and life decisions with which they may need help.
Understand that a great deal of general discussion goes on during the
meals, as students and faculty members mix and match at tables, though this
final session helps to formalize that talk.
The Beginning
Prior
to the beginning of DePauw’s Undergraduate Honors Conference, full-time
members of our Communication Arts & Sciences Department included five
individuals in the following areas of focus:
two theater, two speech communication, and one mass communication. The department also supported an MA program in speech, which
was taken primarily by teachers wishing to advance their status and students
wishing to gain entrance to Ph.D. programs.
This MA program included a thesis requirement which the department felt
helped a student market his or herself to graduate schools.
Further, at this point in time the department’s undergraduates
completed a very demanding senior requirement, including written exams, a
senior thesis, and orals, any of which could cover any topic the department
served.
Three
related factors led the department to a significant structural change and led
also to the inception of the Honors Conference.
First, gradually, the faculty began to realize that the work of its
undergraduates was of the same quality as the work of its masters students.
While the quality of the MA students could have been questioned,
instead, this evidence was taken as a sign that the undergraduates were indeed
able to produce scholarship of high quality.
Second, Walter Kirkpatrick, a member of DePauw’s faculty at that
time, felt that undergraduates should be engaged in research, and he
emphasized this principle in his own teaching and advising.
Professor Kirkpatrick helped to set up Sunday rhetoric colloquia at
DePauw and also acted jointly with Professor Larry Sutton to take students to
scholarly meetings within driving distance of the west-central Indiana town of
Greencastle. Third, and related,
was the notion that other schools might be or should be interested in this
kind of collaborative work with student scholars, and that a program could be
devised to bring these students together.
What
DePauw saw was that gifted students often did not have support networks of
like-students on campus. Considering
the ever-present “requirement” for participation in campus social life,
and the greater interest of other students in social and athletic activities,
the scholar can be left to struggle alone and in silence, at least as far as
finding student collaborators is concerned.
What DePauw also saw was that a faculty of five primary teachers could
only bring so much to these gifted individuals, and that the students had
talent which could be served by the leading graduate faculty of the
discipline. Thus, partly in service to the discipline and partly in
service to DePauw’s students, the primary goals of the Undergraduate Honors
Conference were conceived: Showcase
the work of gifted undergraduate scholars in communication arts and sciences;
establish a network for these gifted scholars; and bring these exceptional
students together with exceptional minds in the discipline.
At
this time, the general idea of bringing together top scholars and top students
was essentially in place. Also in
place was the idea of a multi-day conference including students from other
schools. The initial focus was on
presentations by the visiting faculty, and the weekend included workshops held
by other visiting scholars recruited from the DePauw faculty’s network
of professional associates. At
first, attendees included students from Wabash, Butler, and other colleges in
Indiana. Visiting scholars were
drawn from Walter Kirkpatrick’s Iowa network, the first group being
Donald C. Bryant from Iowa, Mark Knapp, then from Purdue, and Kenneth Anderson
from Illinois.
Rapidly, as word of what was happening got out and the net was cast
wider and wider, the program grew to national status, and the conference
evolved into what it is today.
DePauw
faculty member Larry Sutton commented that the emphatic support of Department
Chair Robert Weiss was essential in starting the program in the first place.
This support helped to develop university funding for the program and
also helped create a strong, positive consensus concerning the conference
among department members. It
is important also to note that the present day conference would never get off
the ground without prodigious efforts expended by our Communication Majors and
our departmental secretary. Finally,
we gratefully recognize the generous and essential funding provided by DePauw
University for this event which serves the discipline more than it serves
DePauw’s students and faculty.
The History
Programming
As
the conference developed over the first 10 years, between 1975 and 1984, the
fairly consistent format described above evolved. At first, the approximately 20-30 students and three scholars
would arrive on Thursday. Their
first meeting would be at a luncheon on Thursday afternoon. After that, for two hours, they would have their first paper
critique session in their assigned group lead by a guest scholar.
Each participant was asked to discuss his or her research and respond
to questions. After dinner, a
scholar would make a presentation about their current research project which
would be followed by questions. Then,
the students would be free in the evening to get together to talk and to read
each other’s papers. Often, the
student interaction during these “free” times has been the highlight of
the conference. As one student
indicated on the evaluation form:
I think the most valuable experience for me was
getting to meet so many people who were as interested in the field as I was,
and exchanging views with them. Just
talking to them informally challenged some of my views, reaffirmed others, and
brought up so many more issues that I hadn’t even begun to consider.
Even
after being up until all hours on Thursday, the students would meet the next
day, Friday, for a two-hour morning session and an hour afternoon session with
the same groups. At lunch and
dinner, the other scholars gave their presentations.
Believing that this might not be enough stimulation, the conference
also included workshops for two hours on Friday afternoon! Other faculty from area schools would come and present
special topics seminars, from which the conference participants could choose.
For example, in 1983, Winona Fletcher and Trevor Brown from Indiana
University presented workshops, respectively, on “The Rhetoric of
Revolutionary Black Drama: Plays
of the l960s and early l970s,” and “The Press Under Fire:
Is the Criticism Warranted?” After
the dinner presentation Friday evening, the students were again able to enjoy
each other’s company—often talking late into the night.
Saturday
was the concluding day of the original conference, and after breakfast,
everyone—scholars, students, and organizers—would get together for a panel
discussion and questions on the “Future Directions for Communication Arts
and Sciences.” The conference
would close at noon on Saturday and the shuttles would start running to the
airport! Tired, but stimulated,
the students and scholars would head back to their own universities.
But, many of them felt that something had happened to them during the
conference. Over the years,
student evaluations of the conference have revealed that, for many, the
conference is a significant life event. As
one student says, “I believe that I will look back on the Conference as an
important point in both my educational career and my life.”
This student goes on to say, “I am quite aware that that sounds like
a cliché, but some events really are that important—the Conference was to
me.”
After
1984, the format changed, a bit. It
appeared that the discussion groups led by the three visiting scholars was the
key to the conference, thus these sessions were expanded and the workshops on
special topics by other faculty were dropped.
Students indicated that “the most valuable aspect [of the conference]
was having such long meetings with the professor and to be able to investigate
both papers and concepts in depth.” They
responded to questions about which aspect of the conference experience was
most valuable by saying, “It was especially enjoyable to participate in a
conference strictly organized around a discussion-type format.
Most conferences I attend involve nothing but lectures.
This was so much more ‘thought-provoking.’”
Of course, there were other practical reasons for changing the format.
It was difficult to ask people to come to DePauw for a two-hour workshop, even
though they seemed quite willing and came from as far away as Memphis,
Chicago, and the University of Virginia to present; however, the workshops
ended in l983, and the expanded, discussion-centered format described in our
introductory section has been used for the last 12 years.
Themes
Unfortunately,
not knowing that this would be something that DePauw would maintain for 22
years, we kept very few records of the first six years of the conference.
However, beginning in 1981, we did keep records of the papers and
attendees at the conference. Some
of the topics being examined by undergraduates in 1983 and 1984 have relevance
to society today. For example, in 1984, a student from Emerson College was
examining, “The Impact of the Personal Answering Machine on Human
Interactive Communication.” Another
student from Wabash College contemplated “The Rhetoric of Conservatism:
An Analysis of the Recurring Themes in Classical Conservatism.”
In 1983, a student from DePauw looked at “The Persuasion of New Right
Organizations.”
Between
l985 and l995, student papers have continued to be both varied and insightful.
There is no possible way to adequately represent this in a short
narrative, but a few sample titles will display the diversity of topics
researched by undergraduate students. They
are, of course, interested in the popular culture of their generation, and the
political world, but also in various discussions of gender issues and a wide
variety of theoretical explorations.
Their
interest in music, TV, and Films, is displayed in such papers as:
“Billy Joel’s ‘Goodnight Saigon’: A Rhetorical Analysis”
(l986), “Moonlighting:
David and Maddie Rewrite the Rules” (l987), “‘Kate and Allie’:
Unconventional Conventions” (l987), “Bruce Springsteen’s Born
in the USA” (l988), “Argumentation Theories and Techniques of Chaim
Perleman Used in L.A. Law” (l989); “Television Criticism: Thirtysomething as
an Emergent Genre” (l990), “Television’s Influence on Society at the
Political, Social, and Economic Levels: Thirtysomething”
(l990), “Fertility God and
Jewish Mom: The Family Structure
in Love Connection” (l990), “The
Last Temptation of Christ: A Lesson in Consensus Theory” (l991), “Murphy
Brown: Capitalism and Gender Roles: Constraints on a Feminist Text”
(l991), “MTV’s Presentation of the l992 Election:
A Fantasy-Theme Analysis” (l992), “Thelma
and Louise: A Cinematic
Milestone, How Far Have We Come?” (l993), “A Rhetorical Analysis: Garth
Brooks and his video ‘The Dance,’” (l993), and “Rush Limbaugh: Cult & Credibility” (l995).
However,
students are also interested in politics.
In l985, there were, of course, papers about Reagan:
“Argument by Transcendent Vision: Ronald Reagan’s ‘Star Wars’
Speech,” “Perceptions of Ronald Reagan’s Communication Image Before and
After the October 21, l984 Debate,” “Ronald Reagan’s Press Conferences
and What They Reveal: A Study Using the Type-Token-Ratio,” and “A
Comparative, Quantitative Analysis of Mr. Reagan’s Style in Discourse as an
Indicator of Effects Attributable to Aging.”
In l986, Reagan appeared in such student research papers as:
“A Presidential Success Puzzle with Reagan, Humor and Rhetoric as the
Pieces” and “Ronald Reagan, the Colloquial Prophet.” And again, in 1990
and 1993, this interest in Reagan continued:
“Hollywood’s Real Genius: Ronald
Reagan and the Consolidation of Mass Media,”
A Psychohistorical Approach to Criticism of the Rhetoric of President
Ronald Reagan,” and “A Generic Analysis of Reagan, Rockne and the Gipper.”
Student
political interest is not limited to Reagan.
They have also studied: Jesse
Jackson, George McGovern, Richard Nixon, Edward Kennedy, Nancy Reagan,
Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, George Bush, Lyndon Johnson, Joseph McCarthy, Mario Cuomo,
Paul David Wellstone, Hillary Clinton, and Ann Richards.
Gender
issues have become more dominant in the last several years.
However, it is interesting to note that since records have been kept
for the Undergraduate Honors Conference, from l981, women students have
overwhelmingly dominated the conference.
Their papers have been competitively accepted at a 2 to l greater than
the rate for men (See Appendix B). For
example, in l981, 26 women attended versus 7 men.
In 1982, 22 women attended versus 11 men.
In 1986, out of 50 papers submitted and 28 accepted, 29 women attended
as opposed to 12 men. In l991,
out of 108 papers submitted and 34 accepted, 25 women attended but were only
accompanied by 9 men. And
finally, in 1995, out of 84 papers submitted and 33 accepted, 30 women
attended versus only 8 men. During
the years between 1982 and 1995, 333 women have been accepted at the
conference as opposed to acceptance of only 149 men.
(These numbers do not directly translate to the numbers of papers
accepted, as some of the papers are co-authored.)
Just
a sampling of the paper titles, indicate the wide variety of areas related to
gender issues which have been studied by these student scholars.
From l985 through l989, they include: “An Arendtian Analysis of Women
and Labor” (l985), “Can
‘He’ be Gender Neutral? Moulton, Robinson and Elias at a Younger Age”
(l986), “A Limited Investigation of Bias Against Women in Academic Debate”
(l986), “Communication and the Dual-Career Couple” (l986), “The Woman
Rebel: Birth Control in 1914”
(l986), “Women and Discrimination in the Work Force:
Three Culprits and Some Conclusions” (l987), “Woman or Girl:
A Study of Specific Reference Terms” (l988), “Attitudes Toward
Women and the REcognition of Sexual
Harassment in the Workplace” (l988).
There
have been even more papers concerning gender between l990 and l995, such as:
“Saying No: Women’s Compliance-Resisting Strategies” (l990), “The Talk
of Women: The Importance of Talk, Topics of Talk, and Functions of Talk in
Women’s Close Same-Sex Friendships” (l990), “An Investigation of the
Effect of Organizational Climate and Subordinate Sex on Manager’s Persuasive
Strategies” (l990), “The Effect of Gender-Specified Bylines and
Respondents’ Gender on Judgments of Credibility in Editorials” (l992),
“Gender Differences in College Students Sexual Attitudes, Behavior and
Communication” (l992), “The Roles of Men and Women in the Wisconsin
Evangelical Lutheran Synod: History
and Perspectives on Discourse” (l992), “The Gynecologist-Client Context:
A Research Model and Agenda” (l993), “Barefoot, Pregnant, and in
the Kitchen? Women’s Opportunities for Individual Development:
Past and Present Challenges” (l994), “A Woman is a Person Who Makes
Choices: A Study in Feminist Political Rhetoric” (l994), “A Goddess and a
Role Model: The Humorous Rhetoric
of Cynthia Heimel” (l994), “To Go Where No One Has Gone Before:
Manipulations of Women and Feminist Self-Criticism in Star
Trek: The Next Generation”
(l994), “Women Silenced, Women Heard, ‘Women Aloud’“ (l994), and,
finally, “The Female Chef: Organization
Communication in the Foodservice Industry.”
As can be seen from just this short listing of titles, there is a great
variance of approaches to the study of popular culture, politics and gender by
the student scholars.
This
doesn’t even begin to display the varied topics and interests of these
undergraduate students about subjects which don’t fit into groups or themes,
such as: “Prolegomena of
Wisdom: Understanding A
Hermeneutic Theoretical Advancement” (l983), “The World of Hamlet:
Christianity in Decay” (l985), “Plato and Ayn Rand:
True Rhetoric and the Noble Lover” (l985), “An Exodus of Liberation
Theology: Dissociative,
Metaphoric and Narrative Strategies in the Theology of Gustavo Gutierrez”
(l987), “Connections, Configurations, and Cornflakes” (l989), “Diatribe
in Artistic Expression: Dada,
Punk, and Jane’s Addiction” (l990), and “History 101:
Combating Platonic Critiques of Public Relations with Gorgian
Philosophy” (l993).
The Students
There
is also a great diversity of representation of universities and colleges among
both the students and the scholars. The
colleges and universities which have been represented by papers presented at
the DePauw Undergraduate Honors Conference can be found in Appendix C.
From the years l981 to l995, when records have been kept, 157 colleges
and universities have participated in the conference.
They range from Puget Sound, Washington and California—Long Beach in
the West, to University of Maine, Presque Island and the University of South
Florida in the East. Students
come from as far north as the University of Ottawa and as far south as the
University of Texas. Four year
liberal arts colleges and doctoral granting Universities are both represented.
Each year, new schools have their students submit work.
In l995, St. Joseph’s College, University of South Carolina—Spartansburg,
Trenton State, University of Indiana—Southbend, Southeast Missouri State,
Bradley University, and Central Connecticut, all participated for the first
time.
The Visiting
Scholars
Finally,
it is necessary to note the importance each year of the three visiting
scholars to the success of DePauw’s Undergraduate Honors Conference.
They spend three days working with these undergraduate students in
intense discussions. The students
often note that “the scholars were helpful in a variety of aspects; very
giving of their time.” The
scholars not only read all of the papers and make comments, lead long,
three-hour discussion groups, and give lunch or dinner presentations, they
also interact informally with these students. One student commented that, “The most important thing was
the meals with the visiting professors.”
Finally, another writes, “The three visiting scholars were wonderful!
They each contributed in their own special away.
I could not believe the amount of enthusiasm and willingness to help
that they had.”
The
scholars who have participated over the years have come from 36 institutions
(See Appendix A). Since 1985,
recognizing the amount of women participants in the conference, there has been
at least l woman scholar each year. This
year, in l996, there will be 2 woman scholars for the first time since 1976,
when Dr. Patti Gillespie and Dr. Marie Nichols participated with Dr. Sam
Becker. The discussion-based
format, combined with the diverse student participation, plus the dedicated
scholars have made the DePauw Undergraduate Honors Conference an important
event in the academic life of these undergraduate students.
One student expresses this eloquently, “Personally, the conference
boosted my confidence and my appreciation for the amazing capacity of the mind
to wonder and draw conclusions.”
Principles
Teaching
and Research Together
At
the undergraduate teaching institution, we do not have the luxury of even
debating the relationship of teaching and research.
Most of us simply don’t have the time, and even if we did have the
time, our institutions would tell us the answer to the dilemma, i.e., teaching
is primary. We find ourselves, at
first, necessarily combining research with teaching to make our careers work.
As
we engage in this combining activity, we uncover the primary principle
underlying the present day DePauw Honors Conference:
Teaching and research are natural partners in learning.
Stumbling upon this realization, we begin to celebrate teaching and
research as inseparable activities which go together remarkably-well for any
undergraduate instructor willing to match them up.
What first starts as a matter of necessity, combining one’s
scholarship with one’s teaching, ends up as an activity which can bring
about a great sense of professional and personal accomplishment.
And
this is at the heart of our conference. The
visiting professors and students form a bond through teaching based on their
research. In actuality, the
teaching goes both ways. Through
discussions of research, developing minds are at times able to see a nuance or
interpretation that the seasoned mind might miss.
Where does the activity of teaching stop and the activity of research
start at our conference? The
question is moot, for the two activities are inextricably combined throughout,
as well they should be!
Furthering
Undergraduate Research
The
second principle of our conference is that individual teachers can only take
students so far in research; so, ultimately, it makes sense to “call for
help.” As many professors are
the only teacher of their specialty in an undergraduate department, many
students are often not able to get a variety of perspectives on academic
issues. Thus, our conference,
bringing together student researchers and the professors whose work they have
been reading, can provide those additional perspectives and extend research in
ways not possible in the normal course of affairs in undergraduate education.
Where
can the research go? What other
questions can be asked? How could
the work be used? What other
implications have been missed? All
of these are legitimate questions for student and faculty to discuss at the
honors conference. We feel that
undergraduate research, properly mentored, can go a long way up to and even
into publication, and our Honors Conference is designed to help undergraduate
research go as far as it can possibly go.
An
Academic Network for Students
Academics
are not always tops on the list of undergraduate student priorities, so truly
talented students may lack an appropriate network of like-individuals with
whom to share their excitement about research.
Our conference is very good at letting gifted students know that they
are not alone in their pursuits. As
students get together at DePauw, they slowly realize that conversation can go
beyond bands and parties and into rhetoric and human communication theory.
For many, this is indeed the first time they have a chance to engage in
scholarly discussions with peers—and they love it.
Perhaps this variable alone is sufficient to explain the high level of
motivation with which visiting students leave DePauw.
Contact
Between Top Professors and Undergraduate Students
It’s
one thing to read Mark Knapp’s texts and articles, and it’s quite another
thing altogether to discuss nonverbal communication with him in person.
Likewise, a student can consider Frank Dance’s definition of our
discipline’s center, but the consideration gains immeasurably when it occurs
in person. The faculty we invite
are individuals who, in the normal course of large university affairs, rarely
get together with undergraduate students in intimate seminar settings.
We wish this weren’t true, but sadly it is often is the case.
DePauw’s conference changes all of that, and for one weekend, these
students have the same status as a doctoral or masters student in the eyes of
the leaders of the discipline.
Inspiring
Academic Careers
Finally,
we must note that our conference works in service to the discipline by moving
talented students along toward graduate degrees. Talented students should see that there is a direction in
which to go. These students
deserve the advice and mentoring of representatives of top graduate programs.
Our
conference seems to have worked in this way; it has given students confidence
in their abilities and some impetus to continue their education in the field
of communication. One student
says, “I feel I grew as a person. I’m
more confident of my scholarship and am excited about the possibilities of
both professional career and academic career.”
Another writes, “It has given me a lot of inspiration into academics,
research and life in general.” Some
feel that they have learned valuable lessons about research, concluding, “I
was glad to learn that the whole research process is not a black and white
issue, and that you can successfully complete research while sifting through
gray areas in the field.” Another
indicates, “I don’t think I have been so intellectually challenged in a
long time. The greatest personal
benefit for me was to realize that I actually enjoyed the challenge!!!”
Though
it’s not a study we have ever done, we would like to see how many attendees
have actually gone on to the Ph.D. Even
if only a handful of students have gone on to gain graduate degrees as a
result of the support and motivation they received at our conference, we feel
that we have served our purpose in sustaining the discipline.
As one student concludes:
Confusions
that I had about research, the discipline, graduate school, and my future were
cleared up over the last few days. I
consider the entire experience a monumental and positive advancement for my
future career in communication.