The workshop will feature three guest scholars—Kelly Johnston (The Scholars’ Lab, University of Virginia), Nicole Coleman (Stanford Humanities Center) and Scott Arcenas (Department of Classics, Stanford University)—who have contributed to the development of innovative digital mapping tools and are equipped to teach our workshop attendees how to leverage digital mapping in their own work. Each guest will have half a day to introduce and train participants in their technology; the goal is to provide an introductory level of competence in each tool.

The workshop begins on Thursday evening at the National Humanities Center with a roundtable discussion between the invited guests and Mark Olson, Assistant Professor of Visual Studies at Duke University. A series of half-day workshops will begin on Friday May 3 at 9 am at the Wired! Lab. Johnston, Coleman and Arcenas will provide pre-registered workshop attendees with hands on tutorials on how to use tools such as Neatline, a program that helps scholars, students, and curators tell stories with maps and timelines and ORBIS, the Geospatial network of the Roman World.

The workshops are free and open to Duke Graduate students. All prospective participants will need to sign up for one or all of the session using the Wired! events page (http://www.dukewired.org/events/). 

The sponsors whose generous support made this event possible are the Department of Art, Art History & Visual Studies, the Department of Classical Studies Greater than Games Lab, The Graduate School, the Department of History, the Ph.D. Laboratory in Digital Knowledge, and the National Humanities Center.

2013 Mentoring Awards Recipients

Faculty:

Cameron R. “Dale” Bass, Associate Research Professor of Biomedical Engineering

Laura F. Edwards, Professor of History

Frank A. Sloan, J. Alexander McMahon Professor of Health Policy and Management and Professor of Economics

Robyn Wiegman, Professor of Literature and Women’s Studies

Students:

Marisabel Guevara, Ph.D. student, Computer Science (Faculty Advisor, Benjamin C. Lee)

Zakiya Whatley, Ph.D. student, Genetics & Genomics (Faculty Advisor, Kenneth Kreuzer)

2013 Teaching Award Recipients (Students Only)

Kristine Callan, Ph.D. Candidate, Physics (faculty Advisor, Dan Gauthier)

Anna Gibson, Ph.D. Candidate, English (faculty Advisors, Nancy Armstrong and Kathy Psomiades)

Writing for Others: Or, What I Have Learnt About Academic Writing
from Writing for Newspapers

If we learn anything from studying philosophy and literature, it is surely that words matter. Our words express our experience, including our intellectual experience. They tell others what we see in the world around us, and in the books we read. But words also express the speaker. When I speak about my experiences, I can’t help revealing who I am: how perceptive I am, how thoughtful I am, what I am interested in, who I take myself to be speaking to, and much more. This is as true in academic matters as it is in everyday life, and it certainly explains why it can feel so scary to write, why it easily can come to feel as if it is not just my intellectual insights that are on the line, but myself, my whole being in the world.

If you belong to the large group of graduate students and professors who feel anxious about making their words public, who worry about their words’ power to reveal them, who fear that they will become the object of scorn when they hand over a manuscript to anyone at all, you have an urgent task ahead of you: you need to make your peace with writing, get to the point where it becomes an enjoyable part of your life. For you have chosen a way of life that requires you to find the words to express what you see in your research materials.

One student once succinctly expressed her anxiety about writing as a fear of “writing for others.” This was a deeply perceptive remark. For the fact is that writing always involves others, or, if you prefer a more theoretical phrasing, the Other. Even if you for some reason decide to write only for yourself, you won’t escape the Other, for language is in its very nature something public, something shared. To make writing enjoyable we must learn to experience writing for others as productive and helpful. Learning to edit oneself, learning to improve one’s drafts, is, essentially, learning to understand what others will make of our words.

*

Learning to write for others involves many things. First, of course, you need to make writing part of everyday life. That was the topic of our first Writing Is Thinking workshop, in January 2011. That point is so fundamental that I will emphasize it again: Write every day. Make it a part of your life. But don’t despair if you can’t get to it one day. Just pick it up again the next day.

Two years ago I had two messages. The first was beware of the fantasy of a clear day, let alone the clear week or month. And don’t go overboard with the dream of the clear desk, either. In short, don’t put off writing until you have a clear day. Don’t clean the house before writing. Don’t let an appointment at noon prevent you from writing at ten a. m. Write first, clear off the busy work later. Surely you can go one more day without cleaning the refrigerator.

The second message was know yourself. Get to know and accept your writing process. Watch yourself trying to get ready to write; watch yourself writing. Watch yourself in the same way that Freud listened to his analysands: with “evenly suspended attention.” Call it a Zen attitude if you prefer. Don’t beat up on yourself.  Accept yourself. Just figure out what you are like as a writer, and work with that.

*

Today I will take it a step further. While it is absolutely fundamental to write every day, it isn’t all there is to a happy writing life. The theme of today’s workshop — take it to the next level — is a response to things I have heard from graduate students over the years. Two remarks, in particular, have stayed with me: “Now that I have made writing a part of my daily life, how do I make sure I turn out quality writing?” And: “I feel awful about this, but although I have been writing every day, I really haven’t produced anything dissertation grade to show you.” There is a difference between these remarks. The first is more neutral in its affect, more open to advice, more professional, in short. The second is far more anguished. The first student isn’t sure whether her drafts are good enough, the second is convinced they are not. It will be harder for the second than for the first to become a happy and productive writer. Yet both are grappling with the same question: how can I tell whether my writing is any good?

My message today is simple: The only way to learn to assess the quality of one’s own writing is by being open to the response of others. You have to be willing to rewrite based on their feed-back. However, it is not unusual to get conflicting advice. I can’t tell you how many times a graduate student has told me that she doesn’t know what to do, because Professor X has told her to revise in one way, and Professor Y has told her to go in quite the opposite direction. But you aren’t supposed to lose your own judgment in the process of listening to others. Don’t let anyone talk you out of writing about the things you really care about, those things that truly excite you. Do let them advise you on how best to communicate your excitement and passion to others. Revising and rewriting isn’t slavishly to follow instructions. In order to use others’ input productively you just need to make sure that you understand what it is in your text that makes your readers react as they do. Once you see why they say what they say, you will know what to do. Never forget that it is your text, and in the end you will have to take responsibility for it. In short: while engaging in the process of writing, listening to others, rewriting, and listening some more to others, never lose sight of what you genuinely care about. Try to mean every word you write.

You may be convinced that you have produced a work of staggering genius. But if none of your readers share your conviction, you should rewrite. Surely there are ways you can make your points clearer, better, stronger. Let’s be honest: the chances that your dissertation will turn out to be the Finnegans Wake of academia — a work that breaks all the rules, challenges the reader’s utmost powers of imagination and concentration in every sentence, and spawns a scholarly industry working overtime to annotate its enigmatic utterances — are not great. And unlike graduate students, Joyce didn’t have to go on the job market.

In any case, most of us don’t suffer from megalomania, but from excessive anxiety. For us, the question is how to develop the confidence to share our writing with others, and the skill to use their feed-back as productively as possible.

On this point, we can learn a lot from journalists. I know this from experience, for I am privileged to be allowed to write regularly for newspapers in my native country, Norway. I have also occasionally written for The Guardian, and I recently co-authored a piece for The New York Times. After over ten years of writing columns and opinion pieces, as well as reviews and longer articles on literary subjects, I can assure you that my academic writing has improved from the experience.

When I sat down to think about what I have learned from working with newspaper editors, I realized that I could divide my experiences in two: fundamental attitudes, and useful tricks of the trade. First the four attitudes:

• think of writing as a process in which you necessarily interact with others
• think of the editor as your ally
• think of rewriting as where the writing gets its shape and its edge, where you finally realize what you are thinking
• know when to let go

To write is to convey what you see to others. Therefore you need to understand how others react to your words. Don’t be either dismissive or dejected when they don’t understand. Be professional! Ask yourself what there is in your text that makes them misunderstand. Rewrite.

Your first readers are your allies, not your enemies. In a newspaper your editor wants your piece to be as powerful as possible. She wants readers who glance at the beginning to get so hooked that they go on to read the rest. Therefore she will ruthlessly point out that your draft lacks a clear point, correct sentences, exhort you to cut sections you really, really care about, and make no bones about what she has understood and misunderstood.

To encounter a truly good editor is an amazing stroke of luck. Such an editor makes you feel that she understands what you are trying to do, even when you haven’t in fact done it yet. If you find such an editor — or reader, or advisor — you will quickly learn to trust her reactions more than your own. Such an editor can actually tell you what your draft lacks, what she thinks you are saying, and what she thinks should be cut, and make you really see your text in a new and clearer light. I worked for years with such an editor. Because she always saw what I was trying to do, her advice was infallible. To collaborate with her saved me days and weeks of work.

If others misunderstand you, anger or dejection are not helpful reactions. Instead of brooding on the unfairness of the world, you need to learn to figure out why they take you to be saying what you are not in fact saying. As the British philosopher J. L. Austin puts it in a different context: “a misunderstanding about what we should say when is not to be shied off, but to be pounced upon: for the explanation of it can hardly fail to be illuminating.” In short: the very fact that your readers fail to get your point is an occasion for new discovery. Rejoice! Maybe you imagined the situation differently from your readers. Figure out what they thought the situation was. Rewrite to specify what conditions you had in mind. This will make your writing stronger, more lucid, more accessible to more readers. In short: other people’s reactions can only help you improve your writing.

Vulnerable and anxious writers overreact to the slightest criticism. If you want to become a better writer, you have to be able to distinguish between genuine feedback and a hostile put-down. Don’t be paranoid! Before you react, think about it. Let the reader’s point sink in. Try to see it from his or her point of view. If they explain why they don’t share your perspective, if they tell you what they miss in your text, if they point out clunky syntax and bad grammar, they are helping you to improve your text. Be grateful that they bother. Rewriting and revising give your writing edge and shape. Sharp prose will make your text stand out among hundreds. (Let’s face it: nobody — not even academics on search committees — enjoys the drudgery of reading boring and badly organized prose. Make the reading enjoyable, and you will get published, and maybe get a job too.)

So far I have insisted that other people’s reactions can only help you improve your writing. But what about the absolutely evil reaction, the hostile put-down, the nasty slur? Luckily, such reactions are quite rare. But if you do receive an unremittingly hostile response, remember that such reactions tell you more about the speaker than about your paper. Don’t use this reader again. If she is your dissertation director, change director.

The last attitude is knowing when to let a text go. This is also quite an art, for there is no obvious end to the process of writing and rewriting. Publication is no guarantee of perfection. (Surely we all know this: think of all the less than stellar published articles you have read in your life!) When I pick up a text I published years ago, I often get overwhelmed by the urge to “fix” it, to correct clunky sentences, to recast the argument, to make it better. But then I remember that there is nothing more I can do about that text now. I let it go when it was as good as I could make it at the time when I wrote it. It may not be perfect, but — but wait! What am I saying? Of course it isn’t perfect! What text is? Even Shakespeare had his weak moments. Why should my texts be perfect? To adapt a phrase by the British psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott: aim for good-enough writing. A writer haunted by the specter of perfection is doomed to misery.

*

As for the tricks of the trade  — the techniques that newspapers have helped me develop or fine-tune, the most important ones, the ones that have most helped me to improve my academic writing are these:

• consider your readers: what information must you supply to get your point across?
• make your text as accessible as it can be given its subject matter
• avoid jargon, define your terms
• write to a specific length
• write succinctly —- cut verbiage: every character (including spaces) counts
• make sure each paragraph has a clear point or purpose
• make sure every larger section has a clear point, too
• learn to cherish deadlines (newspaper deadlines are real)

This list really boils down to three major points:

(1) Write clearly for readers who may not have read exactly the same books as you. An example would be my reference to the “British psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott” above. I could just have written “Winnicott,” which would assume that you all know who he is, namely the British psychoanalyst who invented the term “good-enough mothering.” If you take the trouble to add small explanations here and there, your manuscript will be much more available to readers who don’t share your frame of reference. Remember some members of your dissertation committee, and many members of a search committee may not share your field of expertise. Why alienate them gratuitously?

(2) Write strong prose. Strong prose is succinct. Train yourself to be aware of how much “scaffolding,” how many useless words you have in any given sentence. Ask yourself if your paragraphs are clearly organized. Can you cut anything in a given paragraph without losing your point? Does each paragraph naturally follow from the previous one? Learn to edit yourself on paragraph and sentence level. Learn to cut to the chase. Don’t ever say “I couldn’t make it shorter.” You always can. It just takes more time. If you can do all this, your paper will stand out a mile among the piles of manuscripts received by publishers, academic journals, search committees or the average faculty member. Do your professor the favor of giving her something enjoyable to read!

 (3) Stick to deadlines. If you know you can’t make a deadline, try to negotiate a new one well ahead of time. A newspaper editor won’t hire you again if you force her to fill the column inches she saved for you with some other material at the last minute. Your dissertation director can’t exactly fire you, but she can get intensely annoyed by your constant breaking of agreed deadlines. If you keep doing this, she will get the impression that you have no respect for her time, that you expect her to read your prose at five minutes’ notice, regardless of her own work pressures. On the other hand, if you stick to your deadlines, you can and should expect her to stick to hers. There is no excuse for taking months to respond to a draft chapter delivered on time.

If you do all this, you will become the professional writer you need to become if you are to succeed as an academic. A professional writer is someone who knows that writing is a continuous process that requires the input of others. A professional writer rewrites and reworks her text as many times as it takes. A professional writer knows when to let a text go. A professional writer knows how to craft a decent sentence, and a decent paragraph. Above all, a professional writer knows that feedback from others is not about her worth as a human being, but about the writing.

I’ve enjoyed the warmest of welcomes in my first weeks here at Duke. As the new Assistant Dean for Graduate Student Professional Development, I’ve joined the Graduate Student Affairs team in the Graduate School. I’ve traveled around campus meeting faculty, staff, and students who are passionate about and deeply committed to graduate student professional development. Their efforts have begun to shape world-class professional development opportunities that will allow our students to compete globally.

Most recently, I worked in the Graduate School at NC State, where I led professional development initiatives in career skills for the population of about 8,000 graduate students. I worked with students from among NC State’s 10 colleges to provide offerings that could help them accomplish their career goals, whether those goals included work in industry, government, nonprofit, entrepreneurship, or faculty positions. In 2010, I piloted an emerging leaders program for graduate students designed to develop participants’ communication, self-awareness, professional adaptability, interdisciplinary teamwork, and leadership skills. Program assessment showed measurable improvement in each one of these competencies, and students regularly described the intensive 6-week program’s impact as “life-changing.” Spring 2013 witnessed the program’s fourth year at NC State, and I hope that it can be adapted to the unique goals and talents of Duke’s graduate students over the next year.

In my new position, I’m charged with establishing and maintaining a coordinated set of effective professional development services for Duke University graduate students. My role involves providing strategic direction and leadership for graduate student professional development, and I will be responsible for the organization, development, implementation, and evaluation of professional development services. Over the next several years, I will assemble a comprehensive program that addresses broad and discipline-specific professional development opportunities designed to help graduate students in diverse fields prepare for professional life beyond the graduate degree.

Over the past few weeks, I’ve witnessed several powerful examples of professional development across campus. The Office of News and Communications, with the Graduate School, piloted two workshops for graduate students on talking to the media and writing op-ed articles. The workshops resulted in graduate students’ writing featured in local op-ed pages as well as an interview with a New York reporter on one student’s research.   So successful were these workshops that plans are already underway to expand them to a three-part series for fall 2013.

Another of these powerful examples was the event Writing Is Thinking II: Taking It to the Next Level, organized by the Center for Philosophy, Arts and Literature and the Thompson Writing Program. The workshop featured Duke faculty Toril Moi and Kristen Neuschel as well as Nancy Bauer from Tufts University, Bernie Rhie from Dartmouth College, and Aaron Sachs from Cornell University. The situation of five eminent humanities scholars sharing their challenges and vulnerabilities as writers with young scholars was one I certainly never encountered in my own doctoral work in English. I can only imagine the impact these scholars’ candor and openness had for students who face the daily challenge of writing their thinking. The dedication of faculty like Professor Toril Moi, the force behind this biannual workshop, to encourage and inspire graduate students’ writing demonstrates the investment Duke makes in the success of every one of our students.

In the past few days, I’ve seen the third of these powerful examples bear fruit. The Society of Duke Fellows piloted the Duke GradX Research Presentations as part of Graduate Student Appreciation Week. The SDF organizing team selected 26 talks from 60 submissions by their fellow graduate students to feature in an interdisciplinary event inspired by TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) talks. Each presenter, rather than sharing a finished project, spoke about a research question that drives them. The five-minute, five-slide limit challenged the speakers to address an audience outside their disciplines and, perhaps, outside their comfort zone. I was delighted to see many students, faculty, and staff join in the audience for this student-led event.

These three initiatives exemplify the passions of faculty, staff, and students to design and lead professional development opportunities across the disciplines and across the campus. I’m in the lucky position to build on a foundation of success as I seek ways to connect all Graduate School students with the professional development opportunities that can help them meet their goals for successful careers.

In early February, members of the Graduate and Professional Student Council (GPSC) executive board and some of the general assembly representatives had lunch with President Richard Brodhead, as part of a series of luncheons GPSC has set up to create a dialogue between Duke administrators and Duke students. With only about 15 people sitting around a conference table, it was an excellent opportunity for lively conversation, and for the President to share many pearls of wisdom from his rich life and experiences, and especially the excitement he finds in the vibrant community at Duke. He emphasized the unique accomplishments that could come from a diverse group, highlighting many exciting academic pursuits that have crossed departmental lines. We asked what our group, with representatives from every program in every department of every school of Duke, might offer the university, beyond what we already do. He said that during an alumni event, he was speaking to an alum who shared that when he was at Duke, he felt so plugged-in to the community and so at home on Duke’s campus that he felt that he ‘owned the place.’ President Brodhead challenged us to figure out ways to reach the students who do not normally participate in our events, to motivate every graduate and professional student to plug in more, and to let everyone feel that they ‘own the place.’

We were inspired by this new mission, which immediately sparked some exciting conversations at subsequent executive and general assembly meetings; it seemed like the perfect goal of our imminent GPSC retreat. Professor Joseph LeBoeuf, a professor at the Fuqua School of Business, was equally excited about our new mission, and agreed to help us with the retreat. Prof. LeBoeuf served in the military for 34 years and retired as a Colonel in 2003; since then, he has been a Professor at the Fuqua School of Business, teaching leadership and management as well as serving as a senior mentor and faculty advisor to fellows in the Coach K Center of Leadership and Ethics (COLE). His research and focus are in leadership development and organizational culture, and his experience and success in these areas throughout his life are second to none. With his help, we set out to organize a retreat with the goal of, as a group, achieving a tangible outcome to meet the president’s challenge. Along the way, we hoped that the event would help build our community within GPSC, and strengthen relationships and trust. 

Over 50 graduate and professional students, all members of the executive board or the general assembly of GPSC, gathered at the R. David Thomas Executive Conference Center at Duke’s Fuqua School of Business, which generously provided the space and equipment free of charge. After a welcome speech by Prof. LeBoeuf, the students were divided into seven teams, with each team having representation from at least five of the nine graduate and professional schools of Duke University, creating groups as ‘academically diverse’ as possible. Prof. LeBoeuf guided the students through a team building exercise and, after gathering as a full group again to debrief, everyone headed to the dining room for an excellent dinner, during which the teams brainstormed ideas to address the president’s mission and, over dessert, each team chose the best idea. Following dinner, everyone went into breakout rooms to really work on their ideas as teams, building outlines, plans, timelines, and resource requirements that they wrote out on foam boards. When all the teams were ready, the boards were placed in a circle, and teams rotated through the projects, providing and receiving feedback on the projects. Then the original teams came back together to revise their plans. At the end of the retreat, each team gave a one minute presentation of its idea to the whole group, and everyone voted on their favorite ideas.

As the outline for the retreat came together prior to the retreat, it was presented to Dr. Jacqueline Looney, Senior Associate Dean for Graduate Programs and Associate Vice Provost for Academic Diversity, who was just as excited as we were about the potential of this retreat; so much so, that she provided funding not only for the retreat itself, but to support the ideas that came from the retreat, so that they could be realized in the months ahead! Some of the ideas from the retreat included:

• creating a system to quantify participation in GPSC events, to determine what percentage of students we are reaching and whether there are particular groups or schools for whom we can do better;

• coordinating groups from different schools who are interested in the same thing, including, potentially, the leaders of the various student councils, to pool resources and encourage interdisciplinary collaboration toward a common goal;

• hosting a day of engagement where all graduate and professional students are invited to meet each other, participate in Olympic-like games in teams, create time for a community forum, and end the day with a formal dance or social;

• following up on the day of engagement with a community-wide online forum;

• encouraging continued small-group formation among GPSC representatives, to facilitate involvement from the constituents of each representative on a more personal level;

• facilitating multidisciplinary research projects at the student level;

• implementing a program-specific showcase, where each school welcomes the rest of the graduate and professional student community to their school to demonstrate the exciting things happening at their school, perhaps in a TED-talk style.

I do not think there could have been a better outcome to our retreat than these amazing ideas; the energy in the Thomas Center was palpable for the full three hours, and most of the participants stayed for hours afterward, continuing their conversations. A committee has been established to follow up on these ideas, combine the ones that make sense together, and polish the ideas until they can be implemented. None of this would have been possible without the strong support of several people, including the inspiration from President Brodhead, the strong guidance and teaching of Prof. LeBoeuf, and the monetary support from Dr. Looney and the Graduate School. We are excited to have the opportunity and the means to do something truly meaningful for our graduate and professional student community. On behalf of GPSC, thank you so much.

—Contributed by Shannon O’Connor, Ph.D. student, Biomedical Engineering, GPSC vice president

Pat Grebe (M.A. Liberal Studies ‘06) is pursuing a master’s degree in pastoral studies from Loyola University in New Orleans.

Lisa Yun Lee (Ph.D. German Studies ’99) is the 2013 recipient of the Illinois Humanities Council’s Public Humanities Award. The Public Humanities Award recognizes individuals and organizations for their contributions to public understanding of the role the humanities play in transforming lives and strengthening communities.

Roger Lucey (M. A. Liberal Studies ‘10) has published his memoir Back in From the Anger: The Story of a South African Troubadour Who Lost His Voice and Then Set Out on an Unbelievable Journey to Find It (Auckland Park, SA: Jacana Media Ltd. 2012). The book began with Roger’s final project for his master’s degree, done under the supervision of Margaret Sartor at Duke’s Center for Documentary Studies.

Gordon K. Mantler (Ph.D. History ’08) published Power to the Poor: Black-Brown Coalition and the Fight for Economic Justice, 1960-1974 (University of North Carolina Press, 2013). Mantler is currently a lecturing fellow and associate director in the Thompson Writing Program at Duke University.

Cary Wolfe (Ph.D. English ’90) published Before the Law: Humans and Other Animals in a Biopolitical Frame (University of Chicago Press, 2012). Wolfe is chair and the Bruce and Elizabeth Dunlevie Professor in the Department of English at Rice University.

Likun Yang (M. A. Liberal Studies ‘11) has been accepted into the master’s program under the Council on East Asian Studies at Yale University. He will be doing a comparative study of Confucian ethics and rights-based ethics in the Western tradition, focusing on the different conceptions of the self.

During graduate school, you may find yourself eating for non-physical reasons more often than you like. Stress, loneliness, exhaustion, frustration, and procrastination are common emotions that can lead to emotional eating.  Sometimes emotional eating is tied to major life events, like separation from loved ones, a death, or a divorce. More often, though, it’s the countless little daily stresses that cause someone to seek comfort or distraction in food.

Being stuck in a cycle of emotional eating can lead us to feel powerless or guilty and impact our overall sense of confidence and self worth. The first step in addressing emotional eating requires that we explore our relationship with food.

• Do I eat more when I am feeling stressed?
• Do I eat when I am not physically hungry or when I am full?
• Do I eat to feel better (to calm and soothe myself when I am sad, mad, bored, anxious, etc.)?
• Do I reward myself with food?
• Do I eat until I am stuffed?
• Do I feel like food is a friend?
• Do I feel powerless or out of control around food?

Tips for Managing Emotional Eating:

Try to eat every few hours according to your physical hunger cues to prevent severe drops in blood sugar.

Be aware of how you eat (i.e., driving in the car, at the computer, walking to class, or eating in front of the TV). All of the above are considered “mindless eating” and can contribute to overeating. Try to eat sitting at a table without distractions.

Emotional eating usually occurs in the evening or during times of transition (after a long day at work). It can help to consider other ways of transitioning after a long day (taking a walk, listening to music, or just quiet time by yourself or with a loved one). Engaging in a transition activity can provide you with 15-30 minutes of check-in time with your body to assess your emotional state BEFORE you eat.

Engage in “mindful” eating habits. Mindful eating requires that we slow down the pace of our eating and engage all of our senses in the eating process.

Try keeping a food/mood log to track your food choices and emotions throughout the day. Often you will see  patterns emerge or gain awareness of emotions that you have collected throughout the day.

Determine if there are deficits in other areas of your life such as your friendships, romantic attachments, or your work community.

Assess other areas of potential stress, including career, economic, or familial stressors that may be impacting your mood. Determine if you would benefit from reaching out for support (family, friends, professionals).

Identify options for physical activity or exercise that feel “soulful” and enjoyable.

Be aware of how tiredness can feel a lot like hunger. Food won’t help if sleepless nights are causing daytime fatigue.

If you’re eating to procrastinate, sometimes it is helpful to put the food aside for a few minutes to explore any fears or worries that may be getting in the way. We may want to use journaling as a way to check-in on our emotions. A hot cup of tea and a few minutes of journaling may provide us with an opportunity for this type of  internal “check-in”.

Finally, be aware that restricting food or going on a “diet” actually puts you at risk for emotional eating because your body is starved for energy!

Recognizing that many undergraduates in the humanities and social sciences are unfamiliar with the work of graduate students in their fields, the Society began the semester with its Mentor-Mentee Program, which helped make connections between graduate and undergraduate students at Duke. Later in the semester, the Hurston-James Society organized a Fellowship Workshop in which professors provided feedback to graduate students applying for Ford Fellowships. The highlight of the semester was the Hurston-James Society Alumni Luncheon, during which two founders and early members of the Society, Dr. Jennifer Morgan and Dr. Matthew Countryman, spoke with current members about their time as Duke graduate students, their current work, and their experiences establishing the Hurston-James Society. Their enlivening conversation was an inspiring commemoration of a new stage for the Society. As part of its continued engagement with the campus community this Spring, the Hurston-James Society is offering its support to graduate student events in celebration of the 50 Anniversary of Integration at Duke.

Ariel  Dorfman (Walter Hines Page Professor of Literature and Latin American Studies and Professor of Romance Studies) received Korea’s Dong-A Award for Best Play of 2012 for his play, Widows.  He has also received seven nominations for the prestigious Naledi Theatre Awards, the annual theatre awards in South Africa, for his play, Delirium. In January 2013, he was invited to the DSC Jaipur Literature Festival held in the Diggi Palace in the Rajasthani capital of Jaipur, India, where he helped lead three different sessions.

Srishti Garvey (Ph.D. candidate, Neurobiology) was awarded a one-year Trice Scholarship in January 2013 for research in the brain sciences.

Nathan Hedrick (Ph.D. candidate, Neurobiology) was awarded a Grass Fellowship for Summer 2013 research at the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusetts.  The award supports investigator-designed, independent research projects by scientists early in their career.

Richard Jaffe (Creed C. Black Associate Professor of Religion) became Director of Graduate Studies for the Department of Religion in January 2013.

Hwansoo Kim (Assistant Professor of Religion) published Empire of the Dharma: Korean and Japanese Buddhism, 1877–1912 (Harvard University Press: March 2013, http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674065758).

Wesley A. Kort (Professor of Religion) published Textual Intimacy: Autobiography and Religious Identity (Charlottesville and London: University of Virginia Press, 2012).

Frank Lentricchia (Katherine Everett Gilbert Professor of Literature) has been elected to the American Academy of Sciences. He is one of 198 new members of the academy, which honors some of the world’s most accomplished leaders in academia, business, public affairs, science, the  humanities, and the arts.

Wolfgang Liedtke (Assistant Professor of Neurobiology) was awarded the 2012 Harrington Scholar-Innovator Award  for the development of a new class of drugs that inhibit the pain response in skin with potential applications in painful skin conditions including sunburn and wound pain.

Hiroaki Matsunami (Associate Professor of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology and  Neurobiology) was awarded the Chancellor’s Discovery Grant for “Molecular mechanisms of acute oxygen sensing.”

Carol Meyers (Mary Grace Wilson Professor of Religion) was elected President of the Society of Biblical Literature for 2013. She also published two books, Archaeology, Bible, Politics, and the Media, edited with Eric M. Meyers (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2012) and Rediscovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013). In addition, she delivered the Marcus Breger Memorial Lecture at the University of Arizona  on February 4, 2013).

Walter D. Mignolo (William H Wannamaker Professor of Literature, Romance Studies and Cultural Anthropology) was invited by the Centre for Indian Studies in Africa (CISA) at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, under the auspices of the Wits Distinguished Scholars Programme, a prestigious series that brings renowned intellectuals to Johannesburg from around the world.

Ebrahim Moosa (Professor of Religion) has been awarded a Fulbright scholarship for 2013-14.

David Morgan (Professor of Religion) published The Embodied Eye: Religious Visual Culture and the Social Life of Feeling. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2012). He also published the following essays:  “Rhetoric of the Heart: Figuring the Body in Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus,” in Birgit Meyer and Dick Houtman, eds. Things: Material Religion and the Topography of Divine Spaces. New York: Fordham University Press, 2012, pp. 90-111;  “The Look of the Sacred,” in Robert A. Orsi, ed., Cambridge Companion to Religious Studies. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012, pp. 296-318; and “Religion and Visuality in America: Material Economies of the Sacred,” in Stephen J. Stein, ed., Cambridge History of Religions in America. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012, pp. 748-80.

Geoffrey Pitt (MD/Ph.D., Associate Professor of Medicine, Neurobiology and Pharmacology and Cancer Biology) was awarded a Chancellor’s Discovery Grant for “Increase in bone mass by voltage-gated Ca2+ channels: potential therapy for osteoporosis.”

Kai Zhu (Ph.D. candidate, Environment) has received a Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant from the National Science Foundation.