Logan D. A. Williams
  • Home
    • Navigate Website
    • Contact Logan
  • Research
    • Research Projects
    • Publication Repository
    • Photovoice Projects >
      • Photovoice Project - North Carolina
    • Research Assistants >
      • Recent Work with RAs
  • Consultancy Services
  • Recent News
  • Logan's Blog
  • Teaching
  • Knowledge from the Margins

Science and Technology Studies, Symmetry, and Technological Racism

28/1/2021

0 Comments

 
Systemic racism shapes our past and present understanding of innovation and artificially constrains our imagination of who can be an innovator. One example comes from an inward gaze on science and technology studies of information technology. At the turn of the century, Schön, Mitchell and Sanyal eds. (1999) were worried about how information technology would be utilized in low-income, urban and Black American communities. Dr. Keisha Taylor-Wesselink informed me that an African-Caribbean man created the first worldwide web search engine at McGill University in Canada, which enabled everyone around the world to utilize the internet more easily (The Internet Society 2019). Likewise in the 1970s, Black technicians sold and maintained IBM computers, and in the 1990s Black computer owners in metro Washington, D.C. created their own community-based email listserv (McIlwain 2020). Yet, it is ironic that Schön, Mitchell, Sanyal and other STS scholars were likely unaware that people of color have long been involved in information technology. Likewise, there has been no excitement in our field about the young, genius Black American man who sold a patent he created as a teenager to start his own telecommunications company offering rural mobile phone service across the US (Hatter 2015). The past emphasis in STS on studying deficits in Black digital literacy and information technology use is reminiscent of social scientists' exclusive study of criminality among Black, instead of both Black and white criminals, in the 1960s (Muhammad 2010). This research agenda contributes to a larger problem where Black creativity, inventiveness, and technical competence is underestimated and erased. This erasure is an example of undone science (Hess et al. 2016) in the social sciences. It also further demonstrates that a core tenet of our field, symmetrical analysis, is being unevenly applied where stakeholders are analyzed as users and producers of technology, but these stakeholders are very commonly white and male.
            Meanwhile, Virginia Eubanks (2012) and André Brock (2012) revealed that the popular concept "digital divide" is an inaccurate way to describe various uses of ICTs by the Black diaspora. Black Americans do not use digital devices at the same rates and in the same ways as white Americans. It is also true that the conditions which precipitated Silicon Valley do not map well onto the conditions in Africa amid the burgeoning digital entrepreneurship ecosystem (Friederici, Wahome and Graham 2020). Yet in poor, urban American communities (Avle et al. 2019), urban Ghanaian communities (Burrell 2012), and poor rural Kenyan communities (Onsongo and Schot 2017; Wyche et al. 2015), Black people use mobile phones, surf the internet, and even bank online. More recently, studies show Black Americans are early adopters of technology and are particularly savvy with social media (Repko 2020). It is time to move past the deficit model of understanding people of color's engagement with creativity, invention, and innovation. Instead, we need a fuller picture of how people of color have always contributed to science, and technology innovation and entrepreneurship and will continue to do so after structures of inequality are dismantled. Science and technology studies scholars, with good intentions, have perpetuated systemic racism by an asymmetric attention to the persons and resources involved in creating and controlling innovation.
            At present, STS and innovation studies can explain how current socio-technical systems oppress particular marginalized innovators and their technologies, but cannot explain the variety of innovators, designs, and processes flourishing unseen among the margins, liminal spaces, in-between spaces, and gaps. We fail to see how multicultural innovations are able to develop despite a hostile environment. A small subset of feminist, postcolonial, and African-American studies of science and technology have served as a bastion against the tide. In 1998, Sandra Harding posed a provocative question, is science multicultural? She was building on earlier work in feminist science studies that questioned whether the Mertonian norm of universal scientific knowledge was everyone's truth, or Western culture's way of understanding the scientific endeavor. Basically, she was asking, "whose scientific knowledge is ignored/marginalized/discounted, and therefore whose knowledge counts?" where the definition of "who" is constrained by geo-political, gender, and racial identity. Many scholars realized that a singular universal science was a Eurocentric norm (Harding 1998; Hess 1995). Universalism emphasizes the empirical processes, observations, and natural philosophy traditions of European scientists and their antecedents, without acknowledging much of the scientific processes and observations from other cultures around the world. In contrast, situational knowledges suggest that there are many ways of knowing and thus many truths as it relates to science (Haraway 1997). As an antidote, Harding (1998) described a variety of sciences from outside historically European scientific trajectories. By doing so, she went beyond a deficit model when exploring the encounters/translations between knowledges of the modern Western world and elsewhere. Others uncovered similar stories of novel scientific discovery in the collaborative Japanese and American high energy physics community (Traweek 1992) and among Balinese rice farmers Lansing (2007).
            More recently, postcolonial science studies scholars have challenged the idea that Western colonial powers have made discrete European knowledge and later diffused it from Europe outwards. Instead, they argue, that Indian and British cartography science is co-produced during colonization (Raj 2007), nuclear magnetic resonance imaging science is entangled along a technoscientific trail by Americans, Indians, and British after colonization (Prasad 2014), and ophthalmic science is birthed interstitially from India and Nepal through contestation with US and Europe, and circulated globally (Williams 2019). Innovation from below is defined as, "[k]nowledge and artifacts developed by experts in the global south who are marginalized in the global field of science" that furthermore circulates elsewhere in the global south or global north (Williams 2019, 182). Altogether, these studies suggest people of color, while marginalized by geopolitical status and race, can create novel knowledge. Early postcolonial science studies scholarship still left open a question concerning how power is implicated in technology development.
            A new question emerged: If creating and controlling technology is one form of power (Hård 1993), then how do racially marginalized groups access and participate in technology development? In the US, Eglash (2004) published an edited volume that articulated how racially marginalized people (Black, Latinx and indigenous) have always engaged with technology to rename, adapt, and reinvent it as their own. Fouché (2006) calls this "technovernacular creativity" and he attributes this type of innovation specifically to Black people, and traces its historical roots in enslaved Africans. By doing so, he was extending an earlier argument from his book Black Inventors in the Age of Segregation that "patents can no longer be considered the sole measure of success when examining black inventors"(Fouché 2003, 183). This was because, historically, patents provided neither wealth nor credit, nor freedom from oppression for Blacks in the US. People of color, while marginalized by race and socioeconomic status, can be innovators, and this does not necessarily require patents or copyrights (Benjamin ed. 2019; Gaskins 2019). Theirs is an essential insight because such technovernacular creativity is so frequently dismissed. Unfortunately, the larger problem of systemic racism produces the routine dismissal of reinvented technologies and technovernacular creativity as not considered by some to be "real" innovation.
            Many historical and contemporary sciences and technology are wrongly attributed to whites or Europeans because of systemic racism. For example, Carney (2001) proved that rice farming in the United States was successful primarily because enslaved West African rice farmers, especially women, brought their technology designs, planting processes, and other agricultural know-how with them as tacit knowledge. Slave owners seeking this knowledge hunted people from specific West African ethnicities (Carney 2001). Simultaneously, slave owners took personal credit for the tacit knowledge they stole from enslaved Africans by writing personal accounts of how they experimented with rice production, and attributing their success to their own initiatives or to the (non-rice) farming skills of their European ancestors (Carney 2001). On the one hand, slave owners could easily dismiss enslaved Africans' ideas as emerging from their inherent laziness, while on the other hand they could steal (and in some cases patent) these ideas without any guilt because enslaved Africans were considered beasts not men (Johnson 2017). The continuing of this ideology through systemic racism means that, frequently, when people of color create new innovations, these are dismissed and then usurped.
            Harding (1993), demonstrated the "racial economy of science", where, the creation of science is subject to systemic racism's hegemonic power. More recently economist Lisa Cook (2020 citing Cook 2014) argues in the New York Times that systemic racism has negatively impacted the US economy over time. Racism and particularly violence against Blacks in the early 1900s (when lynching was its most virulent), constrained Black people's ability to invent and patent, and this limited and slowed the economic growth of the US economy overall which disadvantaged everyone (Cook 2014). This is still the case in 2020 (Cook 2020). Americans by not acknowledging or correcting how systemic racism supports stealing, discounting, and discrediting the achievements of Black creatives and Black inventors, are contributing to national economic lack of competitiveness.
            The literature described above suggests that STS scholars have previously proven that science is multicultural, and technology is created, utilized, and diffused by persons who are not elite. However, it demonstrates the need for more novel case studies of innovation by and for people of color to better understand how multicultural innovation and innovation from below grows and propagates in the liminal spaces of dominant culture despite a hostile environment.

0 Comments

Comprehensive Exams, Candidacy Exams and the Job Market: More than the Life of the Mind (re-posted from sociologyofdevelopment.com)

17/6/2017

0 Comments

 
The article below is a re-post from the Spring 2017 American Sociological Association Sociology of Development newsletter (see the pdf here: https://sociologyofdevelopment.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/spring-2017-socdev-newsletter-4-11.pdf).

The newness of the sub-field of sociology of development means it shares some things in common with an interdisciplinary field such as science and technology studies, namely, dispersed resources, disputes about the canonical literature, and questions about disciplinary boundaries, utility, and longevity. As an interdisciplinary scholar working in sociology of development, I want to stress that the comprehensive exam and candidacy exam are important to help you build confidence in yourself as a scholar. Yet those important benchmarks, together with your transcript of courses, are ultimately a negligible part of a search committee’s hiring decision. Instead, to get a position, you need to build the necessary social network during your graduate studies.

I argue for the importance of strategically utilizing your comprehensive and candidacy exams to build your social network while you are a student completing your doctorate. This strategy is important to prepare to go on the market for a variety of jobs, but it is especially important if you are interested in a tenure-track sociology of development position in higher education. Sociology of development is a field in the making and there are few institutional resources; it is more likely that as you cobble together your scholarly-identity, sociology, interdisciplinary studies and global studies departments are likewise cobbling together a few tenure-track lines to offer new positions[1]. As a development sociologist, you will be unlikely to find a position in a sociology department. You should keep this disciplinary diversity in mind as you prepare to write your comprehensive and candidacy exams.

Many graduate handbooks will say that your comprehensive exam should demonstrate that "you have an emerging understanding of the breadth and diversity of the field … and are starting to find your place in it…. are able to accurately represent … compare, synthesize, apply, and critique an array of… perspectives and ideas"(Rensselaer STS Graduate Handbook 2016). What, however, does this mean? The obvious answer is that you must showcase your ability to explain the depth and breadth of the field, and its knowledge gaps, through well-written arguments. This ability is the mainstay of any social scientist. However, this is not all the comprehensive exam represents.
The work done by a comprehensive exam (defending your knowledge of the field), and subsequent candidacy exam (defending your proposed research) is three fold: internal to your department, it displays your knowledge and ability; internal to your person, it develops your self-confidence and expertise; external to your department, it creates official certification of your expertise. The last two pieces of work are the most important, because they help you to build your social network while you are a student working on your doctorate.

By building your social network, I am talking about the folks that you plan to be in scholarly conversation with in the early part of your academic career. Their publications should grace your reference lists for your exams. You should be seeking them out to meet for coffee at the Rural Sociology, ISA, and ASA annual meetings and the bi-annual Sociology of Development meeting. You also should be applying to present on panels they have organized at various meetings. The idea is that the scholars who will be reviewing your application among 60-200 other applicants should have some vague idea of who you are and what you work on before your application ever crosses their desk.
For this to happen, your comprehensive exam and candidacy exam should have a mix of literature to include: (1) old & frequently cited, (2) recent, relevant & cited, and (3) new & highly relevant. You should keep in mind that dead people cannot hire you and neither can recent graduates. Therefore, focus the majority of your exams on recent, relevant and cited literature. Additionally, your reading list for your exams should include a mix of scholars inside and outside the heartland discipline of sociology as befits your interpretation of development sociology's canonical literature. Again, please bear in mind that these are not just the scholars with the most novel or foundational ideas, but ones who have grouped around particular scholarly ideas where you feel you can soon make a contribution: very soon, face to face. I am not advocating complete cynicism when choosing your readings for your exams; instead, I am advocating what a mentor has told me recently: "think sociologically" about your career. Your comprehensive and candidacy exams are about more than the life of the mind.


[1] In his 2014 article in Inside Higher Ed, Jaschik suggests that there is a market for sociologists specializing in interdisciplinary studies and global studies. As a development sociologist, you can fit either role. However, the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that the market for sociologists, overall, is shrinking by 1%. Therefore, jobs will be hard to come by for sociologists across all industry, but especially the already hyper competitive industry of higher education.

0 Comments

Perfecting the Pitch for Research Funding

9/6/2015

0 Comments

 
On Wednesday June 3rd I attended the Michigan State University Academy for Global Engagement Fellowship Program public session (see http://vprgs.msu.edu/event/academy-global-engagement-fellowship-program-0). This public session was open to non-fellows (such as myself), and had two parts. In the first part, panelists discussed “Understanding Federal Funding, Congressional Appropriations, and Agency Priorities”, while in the second part they discussed “Establishing Relationships with Funders: How Do You Talk about Your Work in a Compelling and Intriguing Way so that Funders Listen and Remember?”

I wanted to take some time to process what I learned about grant writing so I decided to write about what I learned.

(1) Federal grants are driven by US governmental policy on different time scales. For grants from the Department of Defense’s Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency, the time-scale is long where presidential administrations come and go. However, DoD research agencies are unique in that their appropriations by the Executive branch’s Office of Management and Budget tend to be steady. For all other federal agencies, the time-scale is short (perhaps 2-3 years) and the appropriations are usually much more sensitive to various presidential administrations. This is why every couple of years you will see news articles about politicians attacking the research results of various social, behavioral and economic scientists funded through the National Science Foundation (see http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/04/nsf-peer-review-under-scrutiny-house-science-panel), or temporarily disabling programs such as political science at the NSF (conflict of interest anyone?, see http://www.nature.com/news/nsf-cancels-political-science-grant-cycle-1.13501) by taking away their funds. Why do these politicians feel as if they have the right to oversight of federally funded research – because that is a fact. (Although, I would definitely argue, as does the presidential science adviser John Holdren, that oversight is not equivalent to peer review; peer-review is much better at distinguishing the value of ‘basic science’ research projects, which as far as I know is still part of the mandate of NSF.)

(2) Most federal granting agencies are fulfilling policy objectives; thus your research must also fulfill these same objectives. John Albrecht (MSU) and Kitty Cardwell (USDA NIFA)  explain that at DARPA and the US Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture, the projects attempt to ‘pull’ new innovations along exciting and novel directions. This means structured long-term technology innovation plans at DARPA. At USDA, Eric Trachtenberg (McLarty Associates) explains, the projects are market-driven by agricultural economics (is this cyclical I wonder?). In contrast, other federal funding agencies (e.g., the State Department’s US Agency for International Development, the Department of Health and Human Services’ National Institutes of Health Fogarty International Center, and the National Science Foundation’s Office of International Science and Engineering) are VERY responsive to the policy directions of the current administration.

(3) Considering that these agencies must demonstrate their relevance and value to the American public through Congressional oversight, they are very interested in research projects that clearly and explicitly articulate this relevance and value. That is not to say that they do not fund basic research. All of the above federal agencies emphasize basic research except for USAID says Lara Campbell (NSF OISE) and Michelle Jones (USAID). But the “broader impacts” statement at NSF (and its equivalent at the other agencies) is the necessary “icing” that makes the ingredients of the entire cake worth buying.

You will see the influence of governmental policy on the call for proposals (e.g., USDA’s grand challenges), but what is the next step to figure out the fit between what you want to do, and the solicitation? Some of the program officers suggested that a great next step is to actually contact them and give them a “15 minute pitch”. In the interest of conserving the time of the program officers and your own, instead of wandering through a vague exploration of your past research disappointments and future research fantasies, you might start with a clear cut outline of your proposed work.

(4) Communicating with the program officer for the solicitation is key to writing a good proposal. For those working on global research projects, a “clear cut pitch” is one that has realistic outcomes and tells a compelling story about what the agency will gain. Lara Campbell at the NSF OISE explains that such proposals have a viable timeline, are responsive to client needs (the country, institution, or project), and additionally are responsive to funder objectives including an emphasis on the uniqueness of your project. Michael Roth (Tetra Tech ARD) agrees that being responsive to client needs is very important and adds that any proposed innovations should be economically sustainable if being implemented in a poorly resourced region. Laura K. Povlich (NIH Fogarty) explains that being responsive to funder objectives means explaining the connection between your research and the solicitation clearly.

Let’s say you have done all of these things: you have picked a federal agency with a relevant solicitation that matches your research project; you understand the current political priorities that are driving the solicitation creation and have drafted your broader impacts statement accordingly; you have spoken with a program officer for 15 minutes about a feasible project that has unique data (and/or methods) and will incrementally build upon scientific knowledge, technology innovation, or international development. Certainly you will have to be more entrepreneurial than applying to just one funding agency. Time to do all of these steps over again for internal collaborative partners at your research institution and external non-governmental funders!

0 Comments

Making Social Sciences More Relevant to Policy

10/9/2013

0 Comments

 
Beth McMurtrie at The Chronicle of Higher Education has written an article entitled "Social Scientists Seek New Ways to Influence Public Policy." The following quote from McMurtie's article describes something that I have never heard of before, the International Summer Policy Institute at American University. 

"I'm trained to pitch a general argument on rape in wartime," says Ms. Cohen, an assistant professor at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. "But I would be asked very specific questions on what happened last month in the DRC, and how does my research speak to that? I find that a very difficult divide to bridge."

For guidance she turned to the International Policy Summer Institute, at American University. The institute is one of a growing number of projects designed to connect academics to policy makers and the public.

- See more at: http://chronicle.com/article/Social-Scientists-Seek-New/141305
So of course I googled this summer policy institute at American University. It turns out that it is for professors and postdocs in international affairs who want to learn how to write policy-relevant academic scholarship, including some information on how to more effectively reach target audiences. I think that this is a great resource. Especially in the current era of sequestration, where congress can rationalize shutting down scientific funding for a particular unit of science in a federal research funding agency (i.e. political science in the National Science Foundation).

A similar resource that was not mentioned by McMurtrie, is the To Think To Write To Publish project. It focuses on developing communication skills among scientists, science journalists, and social scientists who can make contributions to science and technology policy. One of the principal investigators is Lee Gutkind, the founder of the Creative Nonfiction Magazine. The second is David Guston, a prominent science and technology policy scholar and a past editor of Science and Public Policy.

Another network of scholars that McMurtrie mentions in The Chronicle  is the Scholars Strategy Network. This is directed by prominent sociologist, Theda Skocpol. Unlike the first two, it does not appear to provide training, however its staff actively pursues public venues for the affiliated scholars to share their research briefs.

I welcome further information about opportunities for training in how to make the social sciences more relevant to policy.
0 Comments

New publication in Perspectives on Global Development and Technology

26/7/2013

0 Comments

 
I wanted to share my new article which came out in mid-July in the journal Perspectives on Global Development and Technology. Its empirical content discusses the appropriate technology movement as it plays out in the scientific field of ophthalmology. This work comes out of a larger research project analyzing 10+ months of observation and 80+ semi-structured interviews in India, Kenya, Mexico and Nepal. 

Read More
0 Comments

Re-casting your PhD-provided skill set for a non-academic career

21/2/2013

0 Comments

 
I have just finished reading The Humanities PhD at Work on The Chronicle of Higher Education. The author, Megan Doherty has parlayed her PhD in history into a job as a program officer with the German Marshall Fund of the United States in Washington. I very much appreciate her article for the direct insights it gives into how the humanities PhD is very valuable; and also its indirect insights into what kind of work program officers do for nonprofit foundations.

Read More
0 Comments

Procrasti-work...the bane of the dissertator's existence

8/12/2012

0 Comments

 
I first heard the term,'procrastiwork' from a 2nd year student during my first year in the graduate program in Science and Technology Studies at Rensselaer. 'What's that?" I asked Gareth, ever so innocently. Since then, I have become intimately familiar with the word. Especially now that I have some deadlines for my dissertation writing coming up.  Let me try and catalog all of the ways that I have WORKED HARD on NOT writing my dissertation in the last ten days:

Read More
0 Comments

Advice about navigating the job market from STS PhD's

19/7/2012

2 Comments

 
In a previous post, I talked about the difficulties for STS PhD candidates just starting the academic job search. Also, I am interested in alternative careers besides academia because the chances of any newly minted Ph.D. getting a coveted tenure-track academic position are pretty slim. These days search committees can pick and choose among many well qualified social science PhD's with competitive vitaes that can 'do' STS. All's told, I am attempting to figure out how to get an academic or non-academic job where I can use the skills I have honed to understand and address interesting problems of science, technology, society and social justice.

Four people have assented to allow me to post their responses to questions about the STS job search here on my blog.  Dr. Jennifer Tucker is the Associate Deputy Administrator of the National Organic Program at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).  Dr. Casey O'Donnell is an Assistant Professor at Michigan State University, Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies and Media. Dr. Sean Lawson is an Assistant Professor at the University of Utah, Department of Communication and Media Studies. Dr. JC is an associate professor at a university. Jennifer and JC graduated from Virginia Tech's STS program, while Casey and Sean graduated from Rensselaer's STS program.


Read More
2 Comments

Places to Eat, Shop and See in Madurai Tamil Nadu India

15/7/2012

0 Comments

 
So I have gotten to know the north east part of Madurai pretty well because of outings with Indian and foreign trainees in the Aravind owned Inspiration hostel and Indian colleagues at Lions Aravind Institute of Community Ophthalmology (LAICO). I will just briefly discuss my three favorites but I have put all of the places I have been (including St. John's Methodist Church) on this google map.

Read More
0 Comments

My thoughts on the academic job search for recent PhD's in Science and Technology Studies

29/5/2012

6 Comments

 
I just read chapter 3 of Kyle Siler's dissertation, entitled “Nascent Institutional Strategy in Dynamic Fields: The Diffusion of Social Studies of Science”. Apparently it has been accepted in the American Behavioral Scientist journal which is wonderful news for Siler, and thankfully he has been kind enough to put up an earlier draft on his personal webpage.

Regardless of some limitations (see my comments below), his quantitative data is interesting. It appears that, at the present time, more U.S. science and technology studies scholars are affiliated with (in the following order): (1) general academic/ interdisciplinary departments; (2) sociology departments; (3) science and technology studies departments; (4) history departments. 

Read More
6 Comments
<<Previous
    Picture

    Author

    Logan primarily uses this blog to: reflect on policy and professionalization issues in STS (e.g. research funding, discipline formation, skill building, job-hunting, policy applications of STS theory) and to disseminate her own scholarship.


    Archives

    January 2021
    June 2017
    June 2015
    September 2013
    July 2013
    February 2013
    December 2012
    July 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    February 2012
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    August 2010

    Categories

    All
    4s
    Adapt Science And Technology
    Agra-Alliance
    Arguing Better
    Asa
    ASA-SKAT
    Blogging
    Call For Papers
    Caorc Multi Country Fellowship
    CAORC Multi-country Fellowship
    Cleveland Oh
    Conference
    Coordination
    Creativity
    Crime
    Critical Thinking
    Cwwl Graduate Fellowship
    Dialogue
    Dublin
    Engagement
    Engineering Co-op
    Engineers
    Environment
    Environmental Economic Social Sustainability
    Environmental-Economic-Social Sustainability
    Federal Funding
    Gigiri Nairobi Kenya
    Gordon Research Seminar
    Graduate Programs In Sts
    Graduate Students
    Health
    Ibm
    India
    Information And Communications Technologies
    Innovation
    Institutions
    International
    Ireland
    Junior Professionals
    Kathmandu Nepal
    Kenya
    Knowledge From The Margins
    Laico Internship
    Learning As Process
    Local Global
    Local-global
    Low Income Communities
    Low-income Communities
    Madurai India
    Media Arts
    Mexico City Mexico
    Middle School
    National Science Foundation
    Natural Scientists
    Nepal
    New Delhi India
    New Haven Connecticut
    Open Spaces
    Periphery-center
    Planning
    Point Of View
    Policy Makers
    Policy-makers
    Post Docs
    Post-docs
    Poverty
    Publication
    Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
    Rpi
    Science And Technology Policy
    Science And Technology Studies
    Science From Below
    Sleeping
    Social Scientists
    Socoiology
    Sts
    Survey
    Teaching As Process
    Terminal 3
    Top Universities In The World
    Travel
    Triple Bottom Line
    Triple Helix
    Unep Internship
    Urban Development
    User As Producer
    U.S. House Of Representatives Committee On Appropriations
    Woods Hole Massachusetts
    Workshop
    Writing Faster
    Yale University

    Contributor For

    CWWL Graduate Fellows
    Passage International

    Academic Professionalism Blogs

    Get a Life, PhD
    Female Science Professor
    Savage Minds

    Women, Minorities & K-12 STEM Blogs

    RIFE
    Schooling Science
    3Helix

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly