To support faculty as they remained civically engaged during the pandemic, the Center for Teaching and Learning at the University of South Dakota (CTL) launched a training series on public scholarship partnering with facilitators from Emory, Baylor, and Harvard. Core outcome of the series were for faculty to find a home for themselves in public engagement and to support students in their own public-facing work. The series introduced faculty to public scholarship as a dialogical partnership and offered workshops on facilitating public-facing student work and organizing virtual conferences, concluding each term with a panel featuring academics who promote the common good in different ways. This article explains the development of this series with the theoretical underpinnings that guided it and concludes by proposing a definition of public scholarship that includes student voices and repositions universities within the communities they inhabit.
Centered on the unique chronotope of Oxford, this essay traces the ways Gerard Manley Hopkins and Thomas Hardy invoke and compromise our ability to relate past to present. In the sonnet, ‘Duns Scotus’s Oxford,’ and the novel, Jude the Obscure, Hopkins and Hardy respectively present the city of Oxford as a central confluence of medieval and early modern pasts with a Victorian present. To further link past and present, the poet and novelist both enter into the medieval conceit of the wind, wherein a lover gains intimacy with the beloved through mutually shared breath, but they do so for cross-purposes. Whereas a connection to the past is preserved in Hopkins’s sonnet by a theological understanding of the ether, any such connection is a dangerous illusion in Hardy’s novel. Yet, even with this divergence Hardy, like Hopkins, still leads the reader into a shared sacramental intimacy suggested through medieval influences on the novel.
A beautifully written essay uncovering interesting tropes these two astonishing minds share in their revision and invention of the medieval past.Judge for postmedieval’s Michael Camille Essay Contest
Sarah Harvey has developed an important model called creative synthesis for the use of dialectical reasoning in creative endeavors. This model is put in direct opposition to the evolutionary model called random variation, which, according to Harvey, promotes incremental innovation, while creative synthesis promotes radical innovation. In emphasizing the affirmative stage of the dialectical process, creative synthesis offers a description of how groups can be consistently successful in creative endeavors through collective attention, enabling ideas, and building on similarities. We propose that creative synthesis is not a rival to but an extension of random variation and that the same dialectical reasoning used by Harvey allows us to integrate the two models into a more versatile hybrid: evolutionary synthesis. We contend that the hybrid model better reflects the complexity of reality and avoids the problem of routinization.
In their dialogue piece Chen and Adamson provide a superb illustration of creative synthesis in action by integrating the thesis of evolutionary theory with the antithesis of dialectic theory to develop a newly synthesized construct, “evolutionary synthesis.” Their extension of the creative process is exciting, raising both new insights and new questions for group creativity research.Sarah Harvey, “Synthesis in Action: Response to Chen and Adamson”