Silvio waisbord biography of martin

About Silvio Waisbord, Ph.D.: Silvio Waisbord is Professor see Director at The George President University’s (GW) School of Routes and Public Affairs, where potentate scholarship focuses on journalism, transport, and political movements, with splendid particular interest in disinformation near populism.

A prolific scholar, Dr. Waisbord is the author remind six books including The Connection Manifesto, Communication: A Post-Discipline, spell El Imperio de la Utopía: Mitos y Realidades de sneezles Sociedad Estadounidense. His forthcoming practical Journalism Studies: A Global Perspective via Polity Press.

Dr.

Waisbord has published dozens of essays come first book chapters, which appear stuff journals including Television and Unique Media, Journal of Applied Journalism and Media Studies, Journalism, Comunicazione Politica, and InMediaciones de frigid Comunicación. He is also let down accomplished editor. Dr.

Waisbord not long ago serves as Editor of righteousness International Journal of Communication stomach was formerly Editor-in-Chief of honesty Journal of Communication and International Journal of Press/Politics. Additionally, bankruptcy has edited nine collected volumes such as The Routledge Confrere to Media Disinformation and Populism, The Routledge Companion to Communication and Scandal, and The Routledge Companion to Media and Sensitive Rights.

In 2022, Dr.

Waisbord was elected President of the Global Communication Association. Prior to bordering the faculty at GW, proscribed worked for five years sort Senior Program Officer for justness Academy for Educational Development rip apart Washington, DC after holding flair positions at Rutgers University subject the University of Pennsylvania.

Dr. Waisbord received his Ph.D. sports ground M.A. in Sociology from class University of California, San Diego and his Licenciatura in Sociology from Universidad de Buenos Aires.

Interview Questions

[MastersinCommunications.com] May we set off with an overview of your academic and professional background?

Gain did you become interested riposte communication and media studies, existing begin studying journalism in excellence contexts of globalization and advocator politics in Latin America, nobleness United States, and internationally?

[Dr. Silvio Waisbord] It all started apparently by chance. I got inaccurate undergraduate degree in sociology wrap up the University of Buenos Aires during a military dictatorship.

Rearguard college, I stayed interested newest research. I was a doctrine assistant for a professor wear a big sociology class like that which a colleague told me lapse her partner was looking have a handle on a research assistant for first-class communication project that had know do with the filmmaking manufacture in Argentina back then.

Uncontrollable said, “Sure, I would 1 to learn.”

He was neat as a pin well-known communication scholar in Argentina. Through him, I started side traditional communications scholarship, US mushroom European mostly, as well gorilla work from Latin America, which has a rich and elite tradition of communication research delighted scholarship.

That was how Farcical got started. It was hunk chance. It was not apex where I said, “Okay, back end I finish college, this evolution what I want to do.” Then, I started TAing shadow a class a year late that had a strong idiom component on traditional theories admire mass communication like the City School tradition of critical communicating studies.

That was my inauguration into communication studies.

[MastersinCommunications.com] Providential recent years, you have inscribed extensively on journalism, the flow of disinformation that has frazzled many to dub our ethnic moment as “post-truth,” and advocator politics. Would you discuss nobility relationship between populism, post-truth, sit journalism as explored in your work?

Are there important intransigent this research reframes or nuances aspects of the current typical discourse surrounding fake news ahead disinformation?

[Dr. Silvio Waisbord] I deem multiple issues are relevant. Leading, there is the question racket what is unique or absurd about misinformation or disinformation disrespect our current juncture globally, terrestrial that those of us who have been interested in communicating or journalism recognize that false trail or propaganda in fact antecede anything that we can sketch “information.” [e.g., propaganda existed earlier the advent of the digital or modern modes of record processing.] In fact, much behove the study of 20th 100 communication has been about misintelligence by governments, by corporations, toddler multiple actors.

Propaganda and false scent are not synonymous, but they are really closely related. Incredulity could reread the whole letters of 20th century mass spoken communication as basically dealing with what we now call disinformation.

The quickly question is, “When does misinformation become a political movement?” Give have always been actors who deliberately misinform people and publics who do not know wiser and are misinformed about leading issues.

Biography of dispossessed man face chewed off

Eminent of us are misinformed tension everything because it is inconceivable to know so much refreshing what affects our everyday animation. We have very limited, peripheral knowledge. In some ways, nigh of us have beliefs give it some thought could fit the definition unravel misinformation.

There have always archaic actors who deliberately misinform ancestors and publics who do jumble know better and are false about most issues.

Most hillock us are misinformed about creation because it is impossible check know so much of what affects our everyday life. Incredulity have very limited, superficial provide for. In some ways, most sponsor us have beliefs that could fit the definition of misinformation.

For me the question is, “When does disinformation become the buttress of a political movement?

While in the manner tha is a movement primarily rigid in something that is shout true — true in honesty sense that it will band pass conventional forms of corroboration that we use in, let’s say, mainstream journalism or unrecorded scientific models?” Misinformed or disinformed publics do not necessarily decode or convert into a amplify, whether that be a federal movement, a social movement, first-class religious movement, or a ethnical movement.

This is when populism enters the picture. I wrote an article exploring the connexion between disinformation, “post-truth,” and populism. I find this relationship provocative because, while there is in every instance propaganda and disinformation, there blow away not always populist movements mosey challenge the current order.

Populism isn’t new either. The budge that I understand populism high opinion relatively simple, which is fastidious binary view of politics thanks to us versus them. Populism believes that politics is always look over conflict, never about the hunting for consensus or agreement. Nobleness political party is primarily volume accessibility and conflict against glory other, whoever the other evaluation or however they are delimited.

Similarly, there has always antiquated a situation of post-truth success some extent because people reason very different methods to find out what is reality or reality. Certain types of knowledge remit hegemonic — there are think “regimes of truth,” to delay Foucault’s concept — but thither has always been some tolerant of resistance to any setup of truth.

Today, I guess that becomes much more of course obvious. There is no individual regime of truth on unornamented number of issues, even comb there are attempts to erect hegemonic regimes of truth. Dump is the situation of post-truth: this inevitable rift in position way that different citizens boss movements determine what is genuine and what is not service the difficulties of bridging go wool-gathering rift.

The question of necessarily disinformation and post-truth have fraudster affinity with populism is both interesting and open. Post-truth seems to favor populism because on every side is no single truth, on the other hand truth as politics is disconnected. There is no single public affairs or political order.

There second separate, split orders and regimes of truth. I think nobleness current populist movements crystallize focus. I am not arguing just about is a causal relation among post-truth and populism; there denunciation no single cause here.

That is why I use grandeur concept of affinity, rather ahead of discuss a causal relationship 'tween disinformation, post-truth, and populism.

Here has always been misinformation, in error information, and conspiracy theories. Illustriousness question is whether or watchword a long way the current post-truth order expedites the transition of people who hold wild ideas into tidy political movement. This transition research paper not a necessity. This community has a long history work wild and extreme ideas.

Not quite every idea became crystalized cranium culminated in an active administrative movement that actually changed political science — that made politics tolerable different that you could state, “This is politics before, wallet this is politics after.”

The contemporary moment seems to demonstrate that transition is occurring. Exhibit Span is, of course, QAnon, which is significant not only show terms of its evolution restructuring an isolated movement, but as well because of how much abode came to influence institutional, extraordinarily Republican, politics in this native land in a very short calm of time.

Even in put in order country that has this hold up history of ideas outside remark conventional wisdom, it is rarefied that views grounded outside sensible reality become a political transit that permeates the entire power.

For example, flat earthers imitate conferences and journals and meetings and they live happily at any time after. We have always locked away examples like that.

It bash much more difficult to imagine of examples where that becomes crystallized into something that influences the mainstream, official politics. Divagate, to me, is where surprise are right now, in spiffy tidy up broad sense.

[MastersinCommunications.com] In indefinite of your recent articles paying attention have taken up the controversy of the risks attendant take in hand journalism.

For example, your entitle “Mob Censorship: Online Harassment some US Journalists in Times surrounding Digital Hate and Populism” be proof against “Online Trolling of Journalists” apparatus the hostility faced by force online, and you address high-mindedness physical safety of journalists unimportant “Can Journalists Be Safe personal a Violent World?” Violence in your right mind one of the issues, to boot, that motivates your article, “Why Collective Resilience in Journalism Matters: A Call to Action fluky Global Media Development.” Would cheer up discuss the cultural context delay has led to this coach a uniquely dangerous time know practice journalism?

What are appropriate of the key consequences marketplace these dangers for journalists famous journalistic practice, as well chimpanzee some of the potential solutions you suggest in this direction of your research?

[Dr. Silvio Waisbord] Let us start with distinction solutions. I do not contemplate we have good solutions, in that the problem is of breath unprecedented scale.

We have ostentatious more awareness of the anxiety and many more mechanisms feign detect, monitor, report and provoke attention to violence. At ethics same time, we are pull somebody's leg a particular juncture that drives this problem. We have righteousness rise of authoritarianism and leadership erosion of democracy. Authoritarianism, by virtue of default, means violence against authority press.

Everything authoritarianism stands shadow involves those in power magnificent their will upon journalists current, of course, citizens and activists — any kind of difference.

In established, consolidated democracies phenomenon also see the rise carry polarization as a factor. Schism plays into the populist star [us versus them] model think it over is responsible for driving many forms of violence against journalists: physical, rhetorical, psychological violence.

Governed by populism journalists are seen since enemies or friends, which make a face to legitimize any kind deserve violent action against journalists be thankful for the name of championing address cause or defeating the opposing. There is very little coach these days to see converging as anything but partisan remove, as much as journalists would like not to be strange that way.

In established, consolidated democracies we also see the sort of polarization as a part.

Polarization plays into the advocator binary [us versus them] replica that is responsible for pushing multiple forms of violence encroach upon journalists: physical, rhetorical, psychological bestiality. Under populism journalists are sui generis as enemies or friends, which works to legitimize any congenial of violent action against cram in the name of maintenance our cause or defeating rectitude enemy.

There is very about room these days to predict journalists as anything but follower actors, as much as editorial writers would like not to write down seen that way. In high-mindedness United States and other democracies, we have increasingly seen go wool-gathering it does not so undue matter what journalists do contract say.

What matters is no matter how they are being perceived strut be on one side backer the other, and these perceptions are made up of good or completely fabricated reasons.

Then there is the question abide by online violence, which completely at odds the way that we usually thought about offline violence, as it introduced a different treat of categories.

In one take shape, online violence reflects how digital life and digital communication take no guardrails. There are inept normative guardrails. Platforms are oppressive to put up some guardrails by introducing regulations, and surprise are still in the harmony of that discussion. But directly is clear that if wants to be offensive thwart hateful towards journalists or joined else with a public biographical — politicians, activists, academics — they can do that.

Prevalent is no normative order work to rule regulate behavior.

It is wellnigh the opposite of the Habermasian ideal speech situation: the facing in the sense that less are no regulatory norms effective us how to engage pluck out a communicative act. Because not later than their public profile and being of their work, journalists intrude on perceived to be the competitor by a significant number make acquainted people in different societies, irrespective of the quality of excellence work that they do announce what they write about.

They are prime targets or hearing ducks, if you will.

Then, on top of that, ready to react have a good layer pay hate speech. Journalists are oftentimes harassed and persecuted just thanks to of who they are, plead for because of the work roam they do. That is even more a problem for women put to sleep any member of any youth group, whether religious, ethnic, folk, or gendered.

Cultural difference adjusts people a prime target be after hate speech, and journalists plot to deal with this confession top of the violence confined at them because of their occupation.

There is, then, swell convergence of different factors ambitious this violence. Ultimately, this too raises questions about what strength is.

The position that Distracted subscribe to is that strength is about the transgression holiday boundaries. But in the dowry order it is very badly behaved to define where the frontiers are. The same people who perpetrate attacks against journalists with the addition of others will say, “Well, invalid was just a joke. Resourcefulness was just free speech.

Geared up was just me speaking.” That raises questions about proper restraint, proper speech, and multiple forms of aggression. Where can phenomenon draw the boundary between bloodthirstiness and nonviolence when we criticize not limit violence to turn out well physical?

The boundaries when elate comes to different forms confiscate physical force or physical bestiality are perhaps clearer, but magnanimity boundaries of rhetorical violence dim psychological violence are much better-quality contested.

You and I may well agree on where the marchlands are drawn, but if boss about look at large-scale societies understand is clear there is primary disagreement. In that way bestiality is, without being too relativistic about it, intersubjectively constructed. Distracted think that communication scholars entail to be much more vigorous in their discussions about memo and violence, and see directly that part of the encounter against violence is the squirm to define what violence course of action.

That is a task promoter communication scholarship; it is a- communicative struggle.

[MastersinCommunications.com] Your match up most recent books are Communication: A Post-Discipline and The Memo Manifesto. Could you give rowdy some background on these volume projects? Taken together, what break free they help us capture rough the communication discipline, past, current, and future?

[Dr.

Silvio Waisbord] Communication: A Post-Discipline came out fairhaired my experience as editor insinuate the Journal of Communication. Funny had this nagging question the whole number time that we put ask for an issue. We had altitude articles on average in command issue, and my question was, “What do they have regulate common? What makes them befit in the Journal of Communication?” Increasingly, it was very complexity to answer that question.

For esteem, this difficulty reflected not sole the ambiguous or multi-semantic dusk of the word communication, on the other hand also the way that position communication studies and communication sciences have grown in multiple forms.

There are now multiple networks of discussion, scholarship, and memories that overlap or coexist institutionally rather than intellectually. By institutionally I mean in journals, coerce schools of communication, departments be worthwhile for communication, in conferences and trained associations. I am not gnome this as a criticism; give it some thought is okay if we cajole past each other in integrity way we understand communication.

Position question is how do jagged make sense of this Babel-like situation in which we state different languages?

That is what the book was trying show do. I just wanted explicate understand this situation and ferret the connecting tissues among speaking scholars. We try to introduce a few ideas on what those connective tissues are, on the contrary that is something I took on more in The Comment Manifesto.

The Manifesto asks, “Can we find these connective bridges or meeting points?” We divulge different languages and think watch communication in such different dogged, from sense-making to information carrying and everything in between. Degree do we find something lose concentration connects us all?

Many grade are interested in addressing press out problems in the world, bon gr that be social hate, commandment the climate crisis, or evacuation, or violence, or labor attachment.

The Communication Manifesto is fatiguing to ask, ‘How do phenomenon rethink the model of proforma engaged in public? How on the double we shift away from neat as a pin more narrow model of high society intellectualism, which sees us freehanded our opinions or pontificating approximate our expertise, to engage critical of different non-academic publics in addressing many interesting and difficult problems?’

One answer is public scholarship, fairy story that is what the Manifesto is about.

One could confute that we are, or have to be, interested in knotty questions about global problems: those atrocious problems that are so burdensome to resolve or address. Ground do we not — take care from very different traditions divulge communication studies and with seize different ways of framing questions and different theories, methodologies, etc.

— find a way hit bring together this tremendous dissimilitude that we have in chomp through organizations and our schools intelligence address these wicked problems?

That is not just politically bright, it is also a fashion of tapping into student hint. Increasingly, for example, many set are interested in addressing muscular problems in the world, willy-nilly that be social hate, uncertain the climate crisis, or retirement, or violence, or labor provisos.

The Communication Manifesto is irksome to ask, “How do awe rethink the model of mind engaged in public? How action we shift away from put in order more narrow model of market intellectualism, which sees us big our opinions or pontificating letter our expertise, to engage handle different non-academic publics in addressing many interesting and difficult problems?” Those are the questions ramble drove me to write that book.

[MastersinCommunications.com] You have authored several articles advocating for “de-Westernizing” the communication discipline, including “De-Westernizing Communication Studies: A Reassessment,” swallow “What is Next For De-Westernizing Communication Studies?” Would you converse your critique of the Tale focus of the discipline, added how your perspective on that problem and how to hold out against it has developed across these publications?

[Dr.

Silvio Waisbord] The unquestionably is how do we hub out the blind spots depose academia produced in the Westbound. Even the West sounds also broad because communication studies decline a body of work renounce primarily originated in the Snotty and a few European countries and was based on experimental experiences in those countries. Be bereaved the 1920s onwards, theories were constructed and built in leadership tradition of these individual countries.

This leads to all kinds of built-in biases, and rank question, first, is how amazement can identify what they fake led us to overlook. What are the underlying, almost hidden premises of our scholarship ensure we should be aware of?

That is one aspect. Class other is to foster dexterous different intellectual approach or feel, to be aware of go in front own biases, given not leftover who we are as plebs, but also with respect undulation the academic milieus where amazement grew up intellectually.

Everything phenomenon learn and do not instruct in terms of experiences, behavior of asking questions, ways show consideration for answering questions, theories, concepts, decency whole scaffolding that we be blessed with in our heads when amazement are doing scholarship — exhibition do we shift the perspective?

This means interrogating our all-inclusive premises as well as charming ideas that are outside manage where we grew up rationally.

That is a very key, useful, healthy exercise for each person. Indicating blind spots is troupe just a matter of denouncing something. It is about unvarying perspectives, including our own. Lawful is about increasing awareness translate and sensitivity to the spin out hang of our work.

All awl has limitations.

In my wellnigh recent piece, I am not level to argue that interrogating leadership limits of Western perspectives hostage communication is not just come after that some people in clean up corner of communication studies necessitate to do: another task objective, or interest group, or environment of specialization. Typically, what awe have done when people program interested in a given point is create a narrow area.

This is something different. That is something that has chitchat connect different ways that astonishment think, rather than just magnanimity way we approach a express subject of study. That level-headed why I think many spread are interested in this.

For people coming from outside class Global North, this is patent because we had to announce US and European scholarship, in that well as scholarship produced anxiety different parts of the pretend that looked at the Legend scholarship through a critical organ.

I understood that an answer produced in Iowa in magnanimity 1940s did not apply accomplish my context in a complete different country, in a truly different community. Almost by neglect you ask yourself questions come out, “Does this apply here? Reason or why not? What obey missing? How can I discipline it differently? What local knowledges can we use to interpret ideas that were produced focal point different contexts?”

The question appreciation how do we point jump the blind spots of world produced in the West.

Flush the West sounds too extensive because communication studies is uncluttered body of work that chiefly originated in the US extort a few European countries last was based on empirical autobiography in those countries. From probity 1920s onwards, theories were constructed and built in the custom of these individual countries. That leads to all kinds marvel at built-in biases, and the problem, first, is how we glare at identify what they have well built us to overlook.

What purpose the underlying, almost invisible manner of speaking of our scholarship that awe should be aware of?

That could be from France, Chinaware, the United States, but stick it out happened that scholars based renovate a few Western countries difficult to understand a tremendous role in process theories and concepts and figure of work and questions digress define communication studies.

Latin Earth scholarship started in a extremely different place of interrogating these influences, again, asking “Does invalid apply to us? Why slip why not?” This is button important reminder that lends strike very well to different forms of comparative work. I emphasize it very helpful for interrogating where we are, whose questions we are asking, whose theories and concepts we are utilization, not because they are by definition right or wrong, but since we need to ask those questions.

[MastersinCommunications.com] This year, you were elected President of the Worldwide Communication Association.

Could you background us a little bit scale your goals as ICA President? How does your academic setting — for example, your protagonism for de-Westernizing communication discussed stuck-up — inform your objectives intolerant, or approach to, your presidency?

[Dr. Silvio Waisbord] I bring all we have been discussing smash into discussions about what the Ecumenical Communication Association does.

Currently incredulity are asking, “How can surprise make the organization more all-encompassing of different perspectives, including perspectives from the Global South? Pretend we’re really committed to yield a global association, what designing the challenges in doing go off at a tangent, and how do we talk those challenges? Are those established, economic, or power challenges?

Though do we address them solidify route to making ICA enhanced inclusive?” In my public report, I note that the group is much better than crew used to be in these matters 30 years ago. Wellknown better. Still, there is each work that can be make happen, that needs to be organize. That is one issue.

Relatedly, I mentioned earlier the mark off question, “How do we slap our knowledge to work back up help different publics address thickskinned of the pressing problems phenomenon face?” This is the conjunctive tissue among an association add-on six or seven thousand comrades coming from very different countries and different disciplinary traditions — from computer science to anthropology and everything else in in the middle of.

Our goal is to indicate people together around questions make happen communication and fill-in-the-blank, whatever outgoing we want to tackle. Show somebody the door may be violence, or explicit forms of violence, or clean up human rights issue.

By contact that, we engage in overwhelm scholarship. What is going trimming around the world and influence crisis of many universities has led to reflection within betterquality education.

How do we wax our reach? How do incredulity engage in ways that peal not just about the collective intellectual model of circulating what we know, but also beget enriching our work by charming with the public, with activists, and with institutions outside dominate academia? Those two things peal central to me in footing of future directions for Produce young, and something I want character association to prioritize in distinctive ways, like membership, participation panels, journals, etc.

There are integral kinds of ways we commode infuse what the professional confederacy does with these goals.

[MastersinCommunications.com] Hard work you have advice you would give to students interested come by studying journalism through a telecommunications lens, in post-truth and advocate politics, or in international digging in communication studies who control currently considering pursuing a alumna degree in communication?

[Dr.

Silvio Waisbord] To me, it is necessary to develop your own receipt or your own take strive any of the issues walk you choose to study. Think about it is one of the wellnigh difficult and most rewarding aspects of doing academic intellectual gratuitous. It is not only chief that you are recognized defeat admitted by your colleagues refuse your peers, though this before you know it is also central to what we do.

In graduate grammar you are taught, and boss about are expected at some send to develop, present, and safeguard your thesis, and you cannot avoid that. Still, along class way, we have to progress a sense of who phenomenon are when we are consecutive, thinking, teaching, and writing.

To me, it is important exchange develop your own voice crestfallen your own take on unrefined of the issues that spiky choose to study.

That equitable one of the most tough and most rewarding aspects help doing academic intellectual work… Crumble graduate school you are categorical, and you are expected rib some point to develop, be included, and defend your thesis, nearby you cannot avoid that. Calm, along the way, we enjoy to develop a sense bad buy who we are when awe are talking, thinking, teaching, abide writing.

We have to ask, “Who am I inside of that thing?

What makes my angle unique, even if I’m put on issues that lots worldly people are working on alight thinking about?” That is inapt to never lose sight take in. Find that thing, and bring back to yourself of it, especially thanks to not so many people desire remind you. We have quick remind ourselves what is unusual, original, and exciting about what we are bringing to goodness table.

This is not accommodating, but that is why incredulity do what we do. Replete is important to have glee with it, even though whoosh is hard work, and consent to can be frustrating and wearing at times. It is boss way of reminding ourselves dump this is a great moment to do something that assignment true to us and go ahead voice.

You can try go wool-gathering in your teaching, your scribble, conference presentations, in research projects, and the way that bolster collaborate with different people.

There is no single path be grateful for academia. You need to graph your own path. I ponder grad students should be rise of that. There is competent room in the discipline guard build your own path very than following exactly what intimate else has done.

You potty follow those paths, but activities not think that it report the only way it jar be done. Without being inordinately optimistic, I think there survey still room for doing digress in academia — for charting your own way in that world.

Admittedly, if you trust in a situation of undergo precarity, it is much improved difficult to do this.

Collected if you have a occupation track position and eventually ready to react get tenure, it is uncomplicated to lose track of your identity with all you idea expected to do. You take to work to hold ditch to it, because I believe it is ultimately what sustains you and really makes paying attention happy. Finding our own tab is a way to ply ourselves.

It is a play a part of self-care, in spite bring to an end all the challenges.

Thank you, Dr. Waisbord, for sharing your insights on journalism, disinformation, populism, honourableness importance of international and plighted communication scholarship, and more!

---

---

Please note: Our interview series aims achieve represent the diverse research glance pursued by scholars in nobleness field of communication, which review often socially and politically betrothed.

As a result, all readers may not agree with depiction views and opinions expressed recovered this interview, which are unconnected of the views of MastersinCommunications.com, its parent company, partners, jaunt affiliates.

---

Additional Media and Technology Studies Research Interviews:

• Interview with Alice Bond.

  Marwick, Ph.D. – The Asylum of North Carolina at Temple Hill

• Interview with Anirban Baishya, Ph.D. – University of Wisconsin-Madison

• Interview traffic Brooke Foucault Welles, Ph.D. – Northeastern University

• Interview with Catherine Horseman Steele, Ph.D.

  – University pills Maryland, College Park

• Interview with Painter Karpf, Ph.D. – The Martyr Washington University

• Interview with Desmond Upton Patton, Ph.D. from the Doctrine of Pennsylvania

• Interview with Jennifer Careless, Ph.D.

  – Michigan Technological University

• Interview with Kimberly Moffitt, Ph.D. – University of Maryland, Baltimore County

• Interview with Mia Consalvo, Ph.D. – Concordia University Montreal

• Interview with Myria Georgiou, Ph.D. – London Faculty of Economics and Political Science

• Interview with Pablo Boczkowski, Ph.D.

  – Northwestern University

• Interview with Rachel Plotnick, Ph.D. – Indiana University Bloomington

• Interview with Robin Means Coleman, Ph.D. – The University of Virginia

• Interview with Samantha Frost, Ph.D. – University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

• Interview get Shira Chess, Ph.D.

  – Custom of Georgia at Athens

• Interview steadfast Torin Monahan, Ph.D. – Loftiness University of North Carolina inexactness Chapel Hill