Toward an Ethos of Attribution

Recently while driving home, I was listening to an academic podcast and was struck by a verbal pattern of the hosts.  They were referring to others’ ideas, research, and writing without clearly or explicitly identifying these others.  Although the episode’s web page includes links to some of these materials as “additional resources,” in nearly 20 minutes, the hosts drew heavily on a few sources without once mentioning a single name or title.

Instead, they referred to the institution where one of the studies took place:  “There were some folks at X University who did some research specifically on….”  They went on to use language like “The main thing that came out of the research was that…” and “What some people call….”  The underlined words are where, in academic writing, the authors’ names would appear.  They also spoke occasionally in passive voice, such as “a concept that has been identified as….” The passive verb “has been identified” of course allows the omission of who did the identifying.

I think a lot about attribution, citation, giving credit where credit is due.  In fact, I hold high an ethos of attribution–both professionally and personally.

A Toast
(photo filter by Dreamscope)

As an academic in general, I include generosity among my highest values.  (See one of my old newspaper columns.)  I’m inspired by Alison Phipps and Ronald Barnett‘s notion of “academic hospitality,” as in the “friendly and generous reception of guests or strangers or…new ideas” rooted in the Greek “philoxenia,” or “love of the stranger” (237-238).  They note that citations are one of the “place[s] where ideas and people meet and greet in celebratory, communicative and often critical modes” (253).  And so, like academic blogger Pat Thomson, I view “counter-competitive ways of doing and being scholarly” such as “reading other people’s work and giving feedback, working collaboratively, co-writing…, mentoring and supporting those who are where you were a couple of years previously, making your work available open access on academic platforms, setting up writing and reading groups, organizing seminars and so on” as central to my academic practice.

As a writer, I try to be as precise and clear as possible with sources for words, ideas, and inspiration, even erring on the side of overciting.  After all, I see what I see only because I “stand on the shoulders of giants.”*  Much of the time when I’m reading or talking or listening, swirling through my head are connections to the writings of others: additional resources, texts that agree/disagree/offer an alternative perspective, genealogies of books and articles that have led to someone’s comment, juxtapositions of authors that would make for a great dinner party, etc.

As a journal editor, I look closely at authors’ choices of quotations, how and when they cite each other (or don’t), and who cites whom.

As an English professor,  I love teaching how to elegantly integrate quotes into our writing, weaving others’ voices in with our own.

As a bibliophile, I love books of quotations.

As a woman (and introvert who doubly struggles to elbow into certain conversations), I try to “amplify” (Crockett) or “shine” (Friedman) a light on my peers’ good ideas to ensure they’re heard and given credit for their ideas.

As an American raised partially in Southern states, I’m not bashful about calling attention to others in public, much to the dismay of some of my Canadian friends and colleagues.    (I won’t call you out here, but you know who you are!)

Perhaps ironically, I’m not sure where this ethos came from.  Sure, I was schooled in the MLA, APA, and Chicago citation manuals, and I remember learning about plagiarism and how to prevent it.  And I know about the importance of using textual evidence when making claims.  But as Phipps and Barnett and Thomson reveal, there are affective, interpersonal, and power-related issues involved that for me make it less about being credible and staying out of trouble, and more about trying to be what I consider a good scholar and a good person.

*  Although we credit Isaac Newton for this phrase, it first appeared in a 12th century text by Bernard of Chartres (e.g., see Stock; Sarton et al.).

Works Cited

Chick, Nancy. “In the Company of Vampire Bats.” Rice Lake Chronotype, 11 May 2011.  Accessed 19. Jan. 2017.

Crockett, Emily. “The Amazing Tool that the Women in the White House Used to Fight Gender Bias.” Vox, 14 Sept. 2016.   Accessed 19. Jan. 2017.

Friedman, Ann. “Shine Theory: Why Powerful Women Make the Greatest Friends.” The Cut, 31 May 2013. Accessed 19 Jan. 2017.

Phipps, Alison, and Ronald Barnett. “Academic Hospitality.” Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, vol. 6, no. 3, 2007, pp. 237-254.

Sarton, George et al. “Notes and Correspondence.” Isis, vol. 24, no. 1, 1935, pp. 102–126.

Stock, Brian. “Antiqui and Moderni as ‘Giants’ and ‘Dwarfs’: A Reflection of Popular Culture?” Modern Philology, vol. 76, no. 4, 1979, pp. 370–374.

Thomson, Pat. “getting published? its (dis)positional.” patter,  19 Jan. 2015.   Accessed 19 Jan. 2017.


A SoTL Primer

How many times did you introduce SoTL to someone new in the last year, and what did that introduction look like:  a definition, a description, a metaphor, a citation, a workshop, a book, a website?

primerI dream of a SoTL primer, a little anthology of key readings that would together provide some coverage, depth, and range of the field. I imagine a simple cover, a size that fits comfortably in my hands and lightly in my bookbag, lovingly worn pages with dog-eared corners and post-it notes throughout, and oh that book smell.

On a whim one day, I emailed the following question to an unscientific sampling of friends and colleagues:

If you were putting together a SoTL primer of 1 to 10 titles to introduce colleagues to the field, what would you include?  

Tiffany Doherty (a graduate student in sociology and the first SoTL Research Assistant I hired at the Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning) is filling out the citations, working with lists that look like everything from “Barr & Tagg” to “Randy’s seminal article on ‘problematizing'” to a few fully formatted bibliographies. (Thank you, Tiffany!)

I’ll put the full list on my SoTL Guide once it’s ready, but for now, here are a few highlights:

So far, I’ve received 22 additional lists (plus mine). The lists were contributed by the following (in alphabetical order):  Dan Bernstein, Sean Brawley, Sarah Bunnell, Lendol Calder, Nancy Chick, Chng Huang Hoon, Tony Ciccone, Peter Felten, Mick Healey, Bettie Higgs, Mary Taylor Huber, Pat Hutchings, Sherry Linkon, Aaron Long, Karen Manarin, Beth Marquis, Janice Miller-Young, Gary Poole, Torgny Roxå, Nicola Simmons, Kathy Takayama, Roselynn Verwoord, & Brad Wuetherick  

Compiling all 23 lists into a single bibliography, there are 112 citations.

Here’s a word cloud of all of the authors in the comprehensive list. (The bigger the font, the more citations in the comprehensive list.)

SoTL Authors Word CloudHere are the Top Ten Citations from the comprehensive list.

Since five of the items in the Top Ten are entire books and one is a website, here’s the list of the Top Ten Short Pieces that would fit into my imaginary SoTL primer.

I’ll share more highlights and combinations soon, as well as the comprehensive list.

What’s your list?  Post it below, and I’ll share regular updates.

Expanding the Roles of Engagement

EngagementOne of my strategic principles for SoTL highlights multiple levels of engagement. Of course, we encourage and support our colleagues who are practitioners or “producers” of SoTL, and we now recognize students as engaged in SoTL, not just as learner-participants in projects but also as co-inquirers (Werder & Otis, 2009; Felten, 2013).

But there’s another population we don’t often consider in the roles of engagement in SoTL: our colleagues as “consumers” of SoTL.  There are plenty of members of the campus community who’ll never be involved in a SoTL project but who may, however indirectly, benefit from SoTL. Lee Shulman (2004) famously described this consumption of SoTL as part of “scholarly teaching.” He envisions 100% engagement, asserting that “every one of us…every day that we are in a classroom” should be teaching in ways that are informed by the scholarship itself (p. 166).

But this consumption of SoTL won’t happen passively, so we need to be strategic and intentional about reaching this group. Thanks to the ongoing work of Torgny Roxa and Katarina Martensson, we know that this kind of knowledge spread happens largely “backstage,” that “conceptual development and learning” results primarily from conversations with trusted colleagues (2009, p. 547). We can inform those conversations by making SoTL–its key findings, its values, its very existence–readily available, consumable, and actionable.

Before coming to Calgary, I was happily part of Vanderbilt University’s Center for Teaching (CFT), which is known for its guides that summarize research on key ideas in teaching and learning.  (In fact, this SoTL Guide originated there.) When I traveled, someone would inevitably say, “You’re at Vanderbilt!  I use their guides all the time!”  More than anecdote, though, the CFT’s website analytics show that 9 of their top 10 pages are guides. Put that in context with the number of visitors to the CFT’s website–nearly 2 million a year**–and you see how significant these guides are.

Guide by Sarah Kent, Cover Design by Ykje Piera

I’m thrilled that the Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning will start publishing its own guides, joining Vanderbilt’s CFT in facilitating the “consumption” of SoTL and the practices of scholarly teaching.

Our first guide was just posted:  Threshold Concepts” written by former SoTL Research Assistant Sarah Kent.

Stay tuned for more to come!




** From May 1, 2015, through April 31, 2016, the CFT reports 1,895,167 page views, which includes 1,154,878 new visitors and 239,614 returning visitors to their website.  Here’s a sampling of some that effectively synthesize and summarize good research into clearly written, actionable guides (in no particular order):


Felten, P. (2013). Principles of good practice in SoTLTeaching & Learning Inquiry, 1(1). 121-125.

Roxa, T., & Martensson, K. (2009). Significant conversations and significant networks–exploring the backstage of the teaching arena. Studies in Higher Education, 34(5). 547-559.

Shulman, L.S. (2004) Lamarck’s revenge: teaching among the scholarships. Teaching as Community Property: Essays on Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 164-172.

Werder, C. & Otis, M. M. (Eds.) (2009). Engaging Student Voices in the Study of Teaching and Learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus.




Humanities & SoTL: 2 Bibliographies

After a lively discussion of “Controls in SoTL” on the POD listserv in early July, I worried that some of the key folks in the position to encourage, support, and define SoTL on campuses might still be sending the message that SoTL should look like something that many of us don’t recognize as speaking to, with, or for us.

As has been argued from many corners of SoTL’s “big tent” (Huber & Hutchings 30), this impression can have dramatic consequences.  As Gary Poole explained so eloquently in “Square One: What Is Research?”* such “retrenchment” will “restrict the range of participants in SOTL,” as well as “the voices of teachers and learners we might hear and who might hear us” (149).

Yet no matter how many articles, books, panels, presentations, posters, keynotes, workshops, videos, and blog posts we put out there, we frequently have to go back to the beginning and start the conversation anew.  And so to facilitate the conversation more easily next time, and to give us something to share as an invitation to the field, I put together a bibliography called “SoTL for Humanists: Issues & Illustrations” with two parts:

  1. “The Humanities & SoTL: A Primer”
  2. “Annotated Illustrations of the Humanities in SoTL”

But first, a caveat and a hat tip.  The first section isn’t comprehensive, but it’s a start. The second section relies heavily on the ISSOTL’s Arts and Humanities Interest Group for our earlier work in starting an annotated bibliography of model articles. I’ve added a few new ones and commit to keep at it.

Click here to see “SoTL for Humanists: Issues & Illustrations.”

*  “Square One: What Is Research?” should be required reading by anyone interested in SoTL.

Works Cited

Huber, Mary Taylor, and Pat Hutchings. The Advancement of Learning: Building the Teaching Commons. San Francisco: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching/Jossey-Bass, 2005.

Poole, Gary. “Square One: What Is Research?”  The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning In and Across the Disciplines. Ed. Kathleen McKinney. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2013. 135-151.

The SoTL Lit Review, The SoTL Librarian

SoTL_logo_thumbAs Teaching & Learning Inquiry co-editor Gary Poole and I have observed, one of our reviewers’ most common reasons for sending a submission back to the author (for revisions or rejection) is the need for a stronger grounding in relevant research on teaching and learning—an effective SoTL lit review.

Last week, Margy MacMillan led a two-hour workshop on the SoTL lit review here at the University of Calgary’s Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning. Margy is professor and instruction librarian at Mount Royal University, just across the Bow River. In the world of the scholarship of teaching and learning, Margy is a powerful presence behind the scenes as undoubtedly the most active librarian in the international SoTL community. She calls hummingbirdherself an “information hummingbird,” taking information from one place and distributing it more broadly. She was also the secret weapon on ISSOTL’s Publications Advisory Committee that worked tirelessly to facilitate the transition of Teaching & Learning Inquiry from Indiana University Press to the University of Calgary’s open access collections. To be sure, though, she’s not solely behind the scenes, as illustrated by her list of publications about her own SoTL projects and her SoTL partnerships with faculty partners.

I can’t remember the last time I got so many queries about an event being recorded, repeated, or documented in some way. TLI reviewers aren’t the only ones aware of the need for stronger lit reviews in SoTL work: it’s one of the main sources of anxiety in SoTL (Chick, et al. 2014). And so I offer some of the highlights of Margy’s workshop—and recommend other Centers and Institutes to invite her to campus (in person or via Skype) to do the full workshop with local colleagues.

What makes searching SoTL different from the familiar experiences of searching within our disciplines?

  • She told us to “search the way [we] did as undergraduates.” Unlike our areas of expertise in which we know the major researchers, we may not know the big names relevant to our SoTL project, so we should go back to searching by subject (Foster, 2010).
  • The SoTL literature “isn’t networked very well and doesn’t cite itself well,” so rather than the more typical searchable connections that look like a big tree, “SoTL is a strawberry field,” and we need to look within a variety of patches.
  • Unsurprisingly, the search terms will be different from what we’re used to, and we may not have taken the time to systematically collect search terms in years. Margy gave us five minutes to develop clusters of terms relevant to our area of interest, which we’d shared during introductions:
    Margy's Flipchart Notes
    Margy’s notes about potential areas of interest among the workshop participants
    • the phenomenon: field experiences, prior knowledge, reading, teamwork, visual thinking
    • the population: undergraduate students, graduate students, at-risk students
    • methods and their related terms: quantitative (surveys, sample), qualitative (emergent themes, close reading, grounded theory, Glaser and Strauss), longitudinal
    • other: effective, benefits, “significant difference,” signature pedagogy
    • discipline: our own, but also others “where there might be a common issue, pedagogy, method, etc” (Margy intentionally and emphatically places this search last, so we don’t myopically fall back on searching in the familiar places. She mentioned her study of student reading, which led her into the unfamiliar but highly relevant territories of phenomenography, close reading, and neurobiology.)
  • Many of the articles we find will probably be different from those we’re used to, and we can react to this unfamiliarity with the same frustration and resistance as our students (Weller, 2011). We have to be open to new terms, methods, and article styles, formats, and lengths.

Where should we search?

  • Here’s where you’d be wise to bring Margy in for a workshop at your institution. She worked with our institution’s library website before taking us out to the wider internet.
    • Start with our library’s specific discovery system, or the search box set up to cut across its catalogue and databases, such as ours.
    • Also search dissertations and theses, not only for the “Growing body of thesis literature on teaching and learning,” but also “for their bibliographies and instruments.”
  • She encouraged us to use Mendeley, a reference manager and PDF organizer for cataloging sources we may use. At this stage, we can search Mendeley for sources others have collected (e.g., SoTL AND graduate education).Google Scholar's Cited By
  • She pointed us to Google Scholar, not only because it’s sure to search across disciplines but also because it includes more open access materials, and because its powerful “Cited by” function is a great way to start exploring the relevant literature. (See image above.)
    • We can also set up alerts for our searches to learn about new sources related to our query.
    • Here are what some sample searches look like:
      • SoTL graduate education pedagogy
      • “pedagogy training” effective “graduate students”
      • SoTL (“graduate education” OR “teaching assistant”)
    • To narrow the search, use the intitle: command before a key term or the specific context (e.g. SoTL graduate education intitle:humanities) or allintitle: to narrow even further (e.g., allintitle:SoTL graduate humanities)
    • Using many words is also helpful, as full texts are being searched (e.g., “scholarship of teaching and learning” “microteaching” graduate education qualitative effective humanities).
  • Margy accurately notes that “not all SoTL work makes it into scholarly literature,” so regular Google will show us conference presentations, in-house publications, blog posts, and the like.
    • The allintitle: command is especially useful in Google.
    • She encouraged us to “think geographically” because teaching and learning environments and approaches and the resulting scholarship can vary by location. (Think of the Oxford tutorial in the UK.)
      • To search academic sites within the UK: SoTL “graduate student”
      • In the US: SoTL “graduate student” site:edu
      • In Australia: SoTL “graduate student”
      • There is no set academic domain for Canada, but she shared her custom Google search for Canadian academic searches.

Then, as we turned to our laptops to practice these strategies with our area of interest, Margy circulated for specific advice. Notably, quite a few participants changed seats to talk and search with colleagues they hadn’t met before but who’d expressed interest in a similar topic. Behold, the networking power of SoTL.

Over time, of course, the specific strategies above will evolve with the changing tools and technologies…which is why we need more SoTL-active librarians like Margy embedded in our SoTL work and our SoTL community.


Foster, N.F. (2010) The librarian-student-faculty triangle: conflicting research strategies? Paper Presented at the Association of Research Libraries’ Library Assessment Conference, Baltimore, MD.

Weller, S. (2011). New lecturers’ accounts of reading higher education research. Studies in Continuing Education33(1), 93-106.