Kelly Ancharski:

Slow is okay. Like I think one of the barriers of publishing, , in higher education broadly is. That productivity and profit mentality of that’s driven by whiteness. But yeah, so like it’s easier said than done. There’s so much layers to it. I say it to myself all the time. , but like, start something, try, fail, repeat, right?

Like, I think embracing failure is one of the hardest things anyone can do in, in, , higher education, especially because you’re marked by a value, right? From, from the very beginning through grades. But, , yeah, just like finding ways of being okay with rejection, taking too long to submit something, right?

Like giving yourself a reasonable timeline like Kevin was, , speaking to like, it’s okay to get quote unquote blocked. , that ideas are very hard. Right. Especially when it’s not your main focus, especially like when the world is literally burning down. , and yeah, so that, and that is something that I had to sit down with recently and I think gets to this idea of impact versus prestige.

Heather Shea: Okay. All right. Thanks, Nat. Thanks. You’re amazing. Welcome to Student Affairs Now, the Online Learning Community for Student Affairs Educators. I’m your host, Heather Shea. Today’s episode brings together leaders connected to some of the most influential publication spaces in student affairs, to explore something that quietly shapes the entire profession, scholarly writing and publishing in a moment where equity representation and artificial intelligence are reshaping authorship and knowledge production.

We’re discussing how editorial spaces are evolving and how scholar practitioners can engage in publishing in ways. That are meaningful and impactful. We’ll dive into the conversation in just a bit, but first I wanna share something new that we’re launching here at Student Affairs Now. Student Affairs now has always been more than a podcast.

It’s a learning community for educators who care deeply about the future of higher education and student affairs. For the past five years, we’ve created space for conversations that inform, inspire, and affirm the work we all do. Now, we’re launching a Student Affairs now Patreon, to create even more ways for our community to engage, connect, and keep the conversation going.

You can learn more and join us at patreon.com/student affairs Now. As I mentioned, I’m your host for today’s episode, Heather Shea. My pronouns are she, her and hers, and I am broadcasting from the ancestral, traditional and contemporary lands of the NBE three fires, Confederacy of Ojibwe, Ottawa, and Bawa me peoples otherwise known as East Lansing, Michigan, home of Michigan State University where I work.

I’m so excited. I am joined today by four wonderful guests. I’m gonna do a quick introduction of each of them and then we’ll turn it over to them for the conversation. So first of all Antonio Duran is an associate professor of higher and post-secondary education at Arizona State University.

And a law student just informed me he finished his first year whose work examines how intersecting systems of oppression shape higher education. Z Zo is interim Associate Dean of Faculty Affairs and Professor of Trans Studies in education at the University of Arizona. Known for her scholarship on Transco, collegians and Educational Equity.

Kevin Wright is an organizational leadership scholar and faculty member at Southern New Hampshire University, whose work advances culturally responsive leadership and institutional transformation. And Kelly Anki is a doctoral student, sorry, doctoral candidate. That’s an important distinction at the University of Arizona, whose research explores trans world making through tabletop roleplaying games and collective storytelling.

I think we need to do, just as an aside, I think we need to do a whole episode just about your research area. Kelly. I am really eager to learn more as a parent of a trans d and d player, very much in that space. I would love to talk more. Okay. Love it. You gave me, got a 20 right there. Love it.

Let’s dive in and have a chat today about mo modern scholarly writing as we’re calling this episode. So to get us started, let’s just do a quick round of introductions. If you wanna expand on the brief bio I read and then tell us a little bit about your connection to today’s topic and your publication work.

And then I’d also love for you to respond to the first question from your vantage point, what feels most alive or most urgent in academic publishing right now? And Kevin, we’re gonna start with you.

Kevin Wright: Yes, most definitely. Thank you so much, Heather, for having me. I’m coming to you all from the ancestral lands of the Southern new Woo PA people which is now known as Las Vegas, Nevada working for Southern New Hampshire University Global Campus.

So I have the privilege and the grateful honor of still connecting with students in person, but also still working primarily remotely. And in regards to publication history and experience, I have published several book chapters, journal articles, and different types of miscellaneous publications on mainly first gen student success bipoc, black Indigenous People of Color, student Success Alumni Engagement.

My dissertation was on alumni. On alumni engagement. But then I definitely geek out the most on organizational leadership and equity within higher education. And to answer your question, something that has been coming up very often for me as some, as something that comes as a oppressing matter is making sure that I can work with colleagues and individuals and scholars in the field to debunk and demystify the process.

I feel like there’s a lot of assumption making as well as there has been a lot of comparison bias when I’ve collaborated with colleagues that feel as though that they are not enough to publish or they’re not worthy enough to publish, or they don’t, they’re not smart enough or they don’t have the right credentials.

And I always find myself in situations and in conversations where I am simply just addressing their assumptions where it’s just you don’t need a doctorate to publish. You don’t need a master’s to publish. You don’t need a degree. Technically to, to publish, right? You don’t have to have 15 plus years of experience.

You don’t have to be working at a prestigious top 20 institution to publish. These are not prerequisites, right? So a lot of assumption, a lot of co comparison bias pops up. So I believe that’s been a very urgent matter as it relates to navigating the publishing and also scholarship writing process.

Heather Shea: Awesome. Thanks so much, Kevin. Antonio, what about you?

Antonio Duran: Yeah, of course. Thank you so much for having me. Hey folks, my name is Antonio Duran. You can just call me Antonio Pronouns. He m his l As Heather mentioned, I am both an associate professor of higher and post-secondary education at a u as well as being a law student.

And so what that means is funny enough, I have. Had to learn three different citation styles. Over the course of my academic career, I started off as an English major where I used MLA. Of course in the social sciences we use a PA and now in law I am learning the magic. Insert sarcasm here around Blue Book style citations.

So if you ever have any questions regarding citations never hesitate to reach on out. So in terms of my relationship to the topic today I think most prominently I currently serve as the senior Associate Editor for the Journal of College Student Development, which is publication A associated with A CPA, college Student Educators International.

And I also serve as one of the editors for the Journal of Queer and Trans Studies and Education. So I, I hold those roles in addition to being a part of a number of other editorial boards and do reviewing in other capacities. In terms of what feels urgent for me in academic publishing in the academic publishing world is really as social scientists learning how to tell the story of our of the issues that we are researching.

I think it is not hard to look out and see news, stories, events experiences in which there’s a general distrust of science whether it is regarding queer and trans communities communities of color, disabled folks international immigrant communities and I think up to this point we’ve relied on use data as a way of trying to tell a story.

And I think right now what’s feeling pressing is that the ways that we’ve been framing, patch packaging, the data really isn’t landing in a lot of these sociopolitical conversations. And so how do we create narratives? How do we shift discourses while still relying on the science, recognizing that people’s general negative proclivities toward the science is a challenge that we really have to address alongside other disciplines.

Heather Shea: Thank you so much, Antonio. Dunno how you sleep with all of those different roles. Kelly, how about you? Oh, do you have something you wanna add about that?

Antonio Duran: I was just gonna say, I still get eight hours of sleep every night. Every night. That’s Sleep is important folks.

Heather Shea: It is. It is. Sleep and hydration.

Okay. Kelly, what about you? Tell me about your background and what connects you to this topic.

Kelly Ancharski: Yeah, thank you. I don’t get eight hours of sleep, but it’s not, ’cause I’m doing several different things. It’s just depression. But yeah, thank you for having me. In addition to being a doctoral candidate at the U of A a managing editor at about campus and also a research associate at the L-G-B-T-Q Institute on campus in a previous life, I guess I was a social work researcher at NYU.

So bringing a lot of that into both my work and kind of the feedback and publishing roles that I operate in. But what feels most alive in academic publishing right now? To answer that question the thing that comes to mind is death and not to get too existential right away. But by that like on multiple levels we’re dealing with, we’re killing, we’re reviving these multiple processes of dying in our writing.

So we’re grappling with what publishing means in this iteration of fascist states. Like what we’ve, we’re a death of, what we’ve been used to or come to know. We’re mourning, genocides and pandemics in our writing processes. And at the same time we’re continuing to expand the possibilities of form and function of publishing, of academic knowledge, of learning.

That has allowed us especially at about canvas. On our team to like really question what our purpose is our purpose is, and then also what our role is in ushering change for the next world in the small acts of writing, editing and publishing. So that feels very upfront in terms of how about campus has been moving and what we’ve been encouraging with our feedback and reviews these deeper questions, even deeper relations and holding all of that together.

Heather Shea: Beautifully said. Thank you for being here today. Kelly and z also at the University of Arizona.

Z Nicolazzo: Yes, I am the lands of the Honah Ham Nation, which is the ancestral and unseated territories of the Honah M and Pasqua Yaki Peoples. I’m glad to be here. And picking up a little bit on what Kelly said Heather, I know in the introduction you mentioned my work with trans college students.

The writing that I’ve been doing more lately is actually focused on grief and loss. And so thinking particularly about cycles of death and life and what that means for those of us who are working in higher education contexts, as we continue to think about. Other possible worlds as the one that we’re in is crumbling a little bit.

Not a little bit, a lot of bit, so I think in terms of what brings me to this conversation, probably the fact that I am the executive editor of about campuses is mainly why I am here. I’m in the middle of third year of my first five year term and have the joy and privilege to work with Kelly as a managing editor and then Roman Christians before them.

So fantastic folks to work with and obviously great content that I get to read and help curate in terms of. In terms of something that feels urgent to me around academic publishing I may offer two quick things. One of them is a process thing and that is how do we take good care of, or Marsha McGold might talk about, be good company with people as they offer and submit manuscripts.

Not all manuscripts get accepted, but I think that doesn’t mean that we can’t take good care and be in good company with people along their journeys, their writing journeys. And then I think the second thing that I would just add quickly is making our work. I think there are ways that we as academics and as people who are interested in publishing might feel very comfortable hanging out behind paywalls.

I think it’s important to think about how do we make our work in terms of the everyday business policy practice and lives that are happening in education and beyond. So yeah, we’re trying to think about that quite intentionally and about campus and find different ways to move the conversation into new spheres and arenas.

Heather Shea: Yeah. Really well said. I, as you were speaking, I was thinking about my dissertation chair. And they really are in good company with you while you’re going through that process. But once you are done with that particular writing project, moving into other spaces, definitely. Is more of a solo, feels more like a solo endeavor and less, of course, you’re co-authoring something.

Zi I’m gonna stay with you though for a moment because it sounds like all of you named the current moment that we’re in. And I should note for folks who are listening to this episode in the future that we are recording this on the 4th of March, 2026. And so as you think about that, the historical context that set us up for this present moment, see, can you talk a little bit about what feels most different now compared to five or 10 years ago?

And just in scholarly writing and publishing in general?

Z Nicolazzo: Yeah, that’s such a good question. I’m in, in trying to think about that. I’m thinking about the 10 years that I spent as a faculty member before moving into this administrative role and what changed over, over the course of that decade.

I think that certainly what I’m noticing is that there are more people producing more manuscripts that they’re submitting. So there’s a broader kind of increase in terms of writing about topics and just a higher volume of publications. I also think too. Antonio’s point earlier about the new journal that he’s working with.

New, new-ish, not really new anymore, right? Growing up toddler age, not sure. But there are also more venues for people to publish in and more specific venues, I think for folks to publish in, which is both exciting in some respects and also can be challenging and thinking about who’s the audience that people wanna reach and how do you think about doing that.

I would also say too and this might be just coming from my vantage point, doing faculty affairs work at the University of Arizona, but we have. We have more of a focus over the last couple of years on what we’re calling community engaged scholarship, which is thinking about things like op-eds, things that kind of hang out in front of paywalls, and that takes a particular type of tone and register for authors.

That is very hard to do. Also a word count that’s often very hard to do for many of us who are used to writing nine and 10,000 words, or we’re about campus, right? Our largest pieces are four to 5,000 words. So I think that sometimes shifting register and shifting shifting focus can be difficult.

And I don’t think that this is necessarily different than what has happened in previous generations. But I do wanna call attention to the ongoing divisiveness that we’re living amongst and working amongst, because I think that puts. Added pressure and challenge onto authors. I think there’s a desire for many people to, as I said earlier, make their work to be more public in the work that they do.

And also being public creates asymmetrical systems of harm and power that, that some people have to mediate differently, right? So it’s not as easy as just, let’s say submitting something to your local newspaper and just having that be that. And so again, not different. I’m sure that previous generations have had to deal with that a lot.

And also something that I think is really important for us to consider. The last little thing that I would just add, I’m sorry I’m going on a lot, but the last little thing I would add is that I know that folks need to sometimes be thoughtful depending on what their job is, especially if they’re a faculty member around things like metrics impact factor.

Top tier journal versus not top tier journal. So I think that again, not necessarily different, but some of the pressures around ramping up and thinking about what type of publication you’re submitting your work to can be challenging just to navigate and figure out. About campus for example, is decidedly not a top tier journal.

We’re a scholarly magazine. We invite a different type of writing and a different type of intervention in terms of scholarly work. Sometimes that is really exciting for folks because there are a lot of different opportunities to plug in. And also it can be tough to make sense of, especially for novice writers.

Heather Shea: I think the things that you named really for me, I encapsulates the changes that have happened over the past several years, and I think you mentioned Antonio talking about the applicability to the audience of, related to us trying to tell our larger story and the divisiveness within those spaces.

Holding all of that as an author is a lot. And I think also who and how we represent both ourselves, our positionality in those spaces. Kelly, talk with us a little bit about how conversations about equity representation and accessibility are reshaping kinda what gets published and who is seen as a knowledge producer.

Kelly Ancharski: Yeah I think what we’ve been alluding to, one of the first things that comes to mind is that unsurprisingly, we’ve seen an influx of manuscripts responding to the attacks on higher education. On academic freedom, student learning which hasn’t directly changed the conversations that we’re having as editors about who and what gets published.

’cause I think we often are asking what is timely, what is pressing, who is centered. But it does but I do think confirms what types of knowledge people are seeking to produce and what folks are seeking to seeking supports in. So how do we continue to protect ourselves, other staff, students? And beyond that, I think more directly to your question though some of the ongoing conversations we’re having at about campus, inside the classroom with colleagues.

I’m sure you all have also talked about this, but. This idea of who and what gets published is something we’re thinking through in terms of a different submission category that embraces these different ways of producing and conceptualizing, knowing and thinking. Naming arts, poetry, video and photo essays, zines, all throw in there, playing games that have always been and will always be robust forms of knowing with or without a citation attached.

But encouraging about campus along with other journals and in inside the classroom that not only who’s producing the knowledge matters, but like how matters and. At about campus, we’ve as you mentioned we’ve continuously centered practitioner and student first person narratives and stories, but also bringing in this other dimension of creativity.

And really this idea of breaking form that like quote unquote valid or rigorous knowing lives beyond the normal or like the normative introduction methods findings, discussion, layout. And not that’s wrong or right, but asking who does that serve? What else can we open up? And yeah, so we’re in this exciting process of trying to figure out the copyright and legalese of how we do that, and then also honor the perfusion of ideas that can take form in a publishing space to advance student learning.

Heather Shea: That’s awesome. I’ll just open up to others. Antonio, Kevin, love to hear your thoughts about this piece around equity, representation and accessibility in terms of whose knowledge is centered and then are there, despite the current political climate, sociocultural climate, what barriers are still existing?

Antonio Duran: Yeah I think Kelly’s comments were really spot on. One additional layer that I’m thinking about is we exist within a a business in an enterprise. Here at a SU. We use that in a positive way. I do not use it as a positive, in a positive light. And all of the work that involves publishing depends on labor and the things that I’m oftentimes.

Thinking about when it comes to equity is on whose labor right? Are we pro, are we profiting from? And the realities of the peer review process is that people are constantly being asked to exert labor in the idea of like cer being of service to the field. But that we know that it is. People who are minoritized in a number of different AEs of identity that are typically the ones taking on said labor of reviewing manuscripts.

And so when I think about these conversations around equity, it definitely makes you think about who continues to have to exert labor. What does that mean for their continued involvement in the academy? We know that this idea of being burnt out or burned through is very common with academic for those who publish who comes for minoritized backgrounds.

And so it’s a conversation that I think I find myself rec wrestling with every day when I have to assign reviewers to manuscripts. And thinking about like a. Who are the ones who typically say yes and who are the ones who don’t. And then what does that mean in the broader system? And so I think we’re not the only discipline who is wrestling with this.

I think in in some degree any discipline that uses peer review as a me a metric is, facing. But I do think we have to make movements in terms of acknowledging wrestling and hopefully reconstructing better systems.

Heather Shea: Yeah. Yeah. Thank you for adding that piece about labor. I think it’s something that we grapple with a lot, I think, just within these spaces, but like that that really resonates for me as far as the work of publishing and writing and editing.

Kevin, what would you add?

Kevin Wright: Yes, most definitely. This topic in particular comes up often in one of my service roles that I forgot to mention earlier in the conversation where I serve as one of the co-editors for A CPA books alongside Dr. Leila McLeod. And one of the things that keeps on coming up in this regard is basically how do we disrupt these narratives that further.

Minimize and discount the labor that has been, that is being put forth as to what Antonio alluded to. So when I hear the narrative still to this day about publish or perish on the academic side of the house it’s like, why are we still feeding into that narrative? We, for many of us.

We know where this narrative comes from, but for many of us, we are working with colleagues that are still upholding this narrative when we actually have the ability and should have the audacity to disrupt that narrative. Or when I hear people say, oh, Kevin, you gotta stay in, at the forefront of people’s minds, you gotta stay relevant.

So therefore, you gotta be at every conference and convention presenting. You gotta publish at least every year. You gotta get into these books. You gotta get into these journals. You gotta make sure that your name is here, X, Y, and Z, because you gotta stay relevant if you want to have a long sustainable career.

And the thing is that I tell people all the time when I hear that narrative, I didn’t come here to be relevant, quote unquote. I came here to help students. I came here to be an extension of the people that came before me and helped me get through college. I wasn’t reading what my mentors were writing, I was focusing on the fact that they were helping me make it to graduation.

If you would’ve told me that they published, I would’ve been like, cool. But what does it have to do with my financial aid? Cool. What does it have to do with me having a place to stay on campus to, because of the fact that resident life housing costs are very expensive. Cool. What does that mean about, where my next meal is gonna come from?

Are there publications gonna pay for my meal plan? You know what I mean? So it’s, that’s how I personally see it, where it’s important for us to disrupt these narratives because so much labor is going into publishing, writing, developing, reviewing all of this amazing scholarship that’s coming out and through the pipeline.

And at the same time, we also gotta think about, okay, and then what do we get to do with that afterwards? Because even when we do publish, not everybody gets to read our stuff. Who wants to read our stuff? Sometimes. Talking about burnout. Sometimes people just feel overstimulated where it’s just Antonio, I just had a full day of work, but I really wanna reach a book chapter, but I’m just tired.

I’m exhausted. So then how are we also creating opportunities for people to properly and equitably digest the information that is coming from all this scholarship? Because one could argue that the field is oversaturated with so much scholarship that people don’t have the capacity or the time to read.

Whereas some people argue where it’s just but you still gotta publish because we gotta make the field better. And it’s just no one said that we don’t want to make the field better, right? It’s just that we need to make sure that we are creating opportunities to, to truly take the time to, to bask in the achievement of what it means to be a published scholar, and then even more so to apply what we’ve learned from the things that we are reading.

Heather Shea: Yeah. Thanks so much, Kevin. Let’s move on to the other topic that I think always comes up when we talk about writing and that it definitely comes up on my campus every time we do a workshop with our writing center or we talk to first year writing instructors, and that has to do with ai. We have done other episodes on ai, so that is not the entirety of the focus of today’s conversation, but I think it’s important in this conversation to talk about what does responsible authorship look like?

And then where are there potential both opportunities as well as risk. Antonio, I’m going to kick this to you to start us off.

Antonio Duran: Yeah, of course. So let me preface this by saying I am gonna come across as an AI detractor, but I am still trying to maintain an open mind to ai. Several reasons under underlay that, right?

I think we can I’ll many I hope more people learn about the environmental impacts of using ai specifically when it comes to our land resources And water being one of the most contentious forms of property in our world, right? Is severely impacted by the use of a of ai. Just wanna start off with that.

I also want to contextualize my comments around AI and responsible publishing or publishing in general through something that Z was stating earlier around we’re just seeing this increase of people writing publishing, which has, is great in some ways because I think voices, stories that hadn’t been told or had been told in other mediums are coming to light.

And I think that should be celebrated at the same time. I think it’s. Also representative of a broader, the broader system of commodification where publications has al have always operated as forms of capital. And even more so when markets are being saturated they ha the capital that they hold is higher.

And so what are people doing? They’re trying to write more to get said capital in order to hopefully have it pay off in the forms of positions, in the form of prestige, recognition, so on and so forth. And in that comes in ai. Because I think the expectations around how much a person should write or publish are only gonna continue to increase, especially now that AI is entering prominence in the writing and research world.

Not education specifically, but here in the law school, like we’ve been told that, 15 years ago if a senior partner asked you to do research right? They for a few hours, they might expect you to come back with two cases five years ago. They might expect you to come back with six to eight cases and now.

In that same amount of time, they’re gonna expect you to come back with a fully drafted brief because of the affordances that, AI is allowing the legal field. And the same kind of comparisons can be made when with education, with this increased usage of ai. I think the expectations around publishing are going to increase, and as a result, ethical conduct or misconduct may also increase.

We’re seeing a number of journals have to issue retractions after it has been found out. The authors have used AI in the process of writing manuscripts and not disclosing it. I have from the editor perspective seen a number of people who have used AI and disclosed it in the use of analyzing data.

And now another concern, getting to the peer review process. We’ve seen people try to use AI to complete a review of a manuscript, and all of this comes with ethical quandaries of, what does it mean to put someone’s work into these large language models that will then, you know, because of the ways that they’re set up to operate, like reproduce, reshape that that quote unquote product.

And so what does responsible usage of AI look like nowadays? To get at the back, at the question. That’s a great question. I don’t know if I have an answer because I don’t know if we have really gone beyond just the tip of the iceberg of what are the ethics and moral surrounding ai because they think a lot of people just see it as a shiny object that we’re excited about.

But I do have a lot of concerns. So that was a really long, non-answer and I apologize, but those are some, my, my mullings on that.

Heather Shea: Kevin, why don’t you weigh in here on this one. And maybe specifically about how you think about AI use both in your own writing as well as others, and then any guardrails that you think could be effective.

I think Antonio is exactly right, like we are definitely in the early stages of this continuing to impact publishing. What does that look like for you?

Kevin Wright: Yeah, most definitely. I too am a person that is a a careful proponent of ai. And I say that intentionally because of the fact that I tell people often that AI can be, ai technology can be an effective tool as long as we use it as such we can’t discount our own intelligence and brilliance for the sake of convenience.

So therefore, we still need to be able to critically think, we still need to be able to formulate a concise idea. And we need to be able to carefully justify, if not defend it. We can’t just put everything into a large language model and expect perfection. And something that has come up often from my lens as a co-editor for a CPA books is when people.

Are doing the complete opposite of what I just said. So they’re not using AI responsibly. We’ve already had a few situations where people have submitted amazing, proposals for a manuscript. But then you scroll all the way down to the bottom of the document and you see the the responsive text that comes from a large language model where it’s just oh, is this what you had in mind?

Let me know if you want me to rewrite it as such, provided by insert large language model name here. And it’s just oh, okay. Now we need to have a a restorative conversation, a, constructive conversation about this as well. Or sometimes we’ll have people submit proposals and we ask them to provide a citations for people’s scholarship that they are referencing in their work for potential publication.

And just recently there was a person that was writing a proposal about advancing mid-level professionals of color in higher education and roughly. Seven to 10 of their references were citations that don’t exist, like the author’s names are real. And at the same time, many of those authors and those scholars I personally know in this field and follow their scholarship and know for a fact that they didn’t write anything about some of the things that this person was proposing.

Now, granted, I still did my homework, so I went to Google Scholar, I sent a few emails and I just checked. I’m just like, Hey, did you write this? Because I can’t see it anywhere online. I don’t see it in any journals, no repositories. I just wanna give this person the benefit of the doubt because maybe you did publish something on this and I just haven’t read it yet.

And come to find out, no, didn’t write that, didn’t publish that. That ain’t me. So then that led to more critical conversations about Hey, if you’re gonna use ai, even if it’s just for the sake of formatting citations, do your homework. Look into Google Scholar, look into your repository, look into your journals, look into your articles.

If I can’t easily access it without a large language model, then that, that should tell you something about what it’s what the output is developing for you. I’ve had several conversations with students and with colleagues that, again, it’s important to, to think about how we are using AI to support us, not just do the work for us.

So something that I share open with people is that I am not the best person for titles. I’m just not, it doesn’t matter if it’s the title of a chapter, a book or a presentation. I am just not really good at titles. So sometimes I will go into Google Gemini and I’ll, and I will say, Hey, provide me 10 suggestions for a book, chapter title about this topic.

That’s it. Just to see what it puts out. I don’t directly use what it gives me because of the fact that I still wanna make sure that I’m considering like, okay, if I use that title, then that could imply this, which would then. Derail my writing, or if I use this title, that could be too central to this idea, but not this idea.

So I’m always taking the time to be mindful of just because it gave me 10 suggestions doesn’t mean that I’m actually gonna use one of those 10 suggestions. It’s just getting the wheels turning in my head about oh, you know what? I didn’t actually think that could be a verbiage that I can use in a title.

Now I’m gonna explore that. So I use that example because I tell people that’s a very simple and very fundamental way of how you can use AI as an effective tool without getting too into the nitty gritty, to the point where it’s doing everything for you. And I know that Antonio shared so much insight about the, the impact that AI technology has on our community. I would actually advise people to look into that a little bit more deeply and actually learn about what that actually means. Like I encourage people to look up how AI technology is impacting water resources, how AI technology is impacting campus resources, how even AI technology is impacting the gaming industry or the housing market.

A lot of people think that it’s just technology and it’s just a bunch of data and language, large language learning models, but it’s, it goes so much deeper than that. When it comes to. The opportunities, the opportunities that it can help people explore, the inner workings of their mind more creatively.

And at the same time, the risk is that they become overly reliant on this tool to the point where they literally forget their own voice in their writing. They forget how they actually think because they expect AI to just think exactly like them, which is why these guardrails are, and these expectations are very important to make sure that people understand what AI is and what AI is not in the context of academic and scholarly writing.

Heather Shea: Awesome, thank you. I think we’re gonna leave the AI conversation ’cause we could literally talk about that. I think for the rest, I have lots of questions for both of you, but maybe follow up episode because I, yeah. I find it to be some troubling and also, weirdly, like how on earth does this even happen?

And I think it’s right. You’re right. Because they’re putting so much information into it. Okay, so let’s move to advice. I know one of the barriers that I know my colleagues and even I have talked about is just as a practitioner scholar or as a scholar practitioner I feel intimidated sometimes by submitting something to, any really publication journal be partially.

And there are lots of reasons, right? One is, it’s been a while since I’ve been in school there. Maybe my knowledge isn’t quite as up to date. Maybe my writing isn’t so great. But Kevin stay with you for a second. Tell us what practical advice you would give to folks who are considering submitting something, submitting a book proposal or other kind of manuscript as a scholar practitioner.

Kevin Wright: Yes. First and foremost I would say be clear about who this is for. And the reason why I bring that up is because I was recently working with a colleague who was who is working on a manuscript proposal about better supporting black women who are in senior student affairs officer positions in higher education.

And the, and I read the proposal and I thought it was great. And at the same time, what was a little misleading was I couldn’t figure out the the intention behind the proposal. So I asked my colleague, is this for black women about black women, or both? Or is it something completely different?

Because depending on that person’s answer, it then will lead me to then ask some more follow up questions or to give additional feedback. So in that regard, in that conversation with this colleague, I let them know that Hey, it seems like you’re trying to put so many ideas into one book that I think you should like, definitely spread it out and maybe honestly turn this into a series.

So I would tell folks to be clear about who this is for, what you’re writing about, and then think about how you can create longevity with your work as opposed to trying to put. Every single idea running through your head into one publication. Another thing that I would also share with folks is that it’s very important to take your time and be mindful of what an equitable timeline and reasonable timeline would be.

Because if you are doing a book chapter or a complete book that has different implications of time and then also when you are trying to start the process will also have different implications of your time. So for example, I know that some folks that I’m working with, they’re starting the, they start the process back in January and their ambitious goal was to have a call proposals in January and then make a decision by February and then have people submit their first draft of their.

Proposal by the end of March. I had to slow it down with this person, with these folks and let them know. They’re like, Hey, think about conference season. Think about convention season. Also, think about the turnaround from writing a proposal to writing a full manuscript. And then also who’s reading all this, who’s revising and reviewing all this.

I know you want to get this done in six months, and at the same time, give yourself a little bit of wiggle room. Because unless you are writing full time this is gonna be a heavy lift. And then also the people that you’re collaborating with, if it’s like a an edited volume series, they also need time to to put in this labor that they are not getting compensated for in order to make this book project a reality.

Definitely those things for sure. And then making sure that folks understand that when it comes to receiving feedback it’s not the law. You have an opportunity to agree or disagree with the feedback that you’re being given. And there’s nothing wrong with simply having a follow-up conversation with the people that you are working with.

I have been in situations where people have said to me as feedback, oh Kevin, I don’t think you should use this word because it’s made up. And it’s just all words are made up, first of all. And then secondly, that word is a word that is very symbolic in one of my cultural identities. So therefore, that’s why it’s books made up to you because it’s not an English word, it’s a PreOn word.

Because I was able to sit down with that person and have that conversation, they understood where I was coming from. They apologized for the misunderstanding, and then we kept it pushing. But having that conversation was very vital to the process. And the thing is that if I would’ve just sat there and just taken their feedback as universal truth, then part of my culture, part of my identity would’ve been taken out of my writing, which I’m not down for.

So definitely make sure that you are thinking about the feedback process as a collaborative process, not a punitive process.

Heather Shea: And thank you. Kelly, how about you? Any specific advice you would give? And, I think Kevin’s kind of naming that like revise and resubmit rejection, how do you kind of power through that if it’s possible?

And then I think as Z already mentioned about campus, occupies this really unique space. And as you’ve thought about publishing your work, is there a difference between writing for impact versus writing for prestige? And what advice would you give around that?

Kelly Ancharski: Yeah, there’s so much there.

I

Heather Shea: know. Too many questions. Sorry.

Kelly Ancharski: They No, it is, they’re all good. They’re all generative and I think expanding where Kevin started us in in bringing up right, publish or perish I think the advice of like slowness and like z and I often talk about the care that it takes to not only write, but also to give feedback and to respond to feedback.

Slow is okay. Like I think one of the barriers of publishing in higher education broadly is. That productivity and profit mentality of that’s driven by whiteness. But yeah, so like it’s easier said than done. There’s so much layers to it. I say it to myself all the time. But start something, try, fail, repeat, right?

I think embracing failure is one of the hardest things anyone can do in higher education, especially because you’re marked by a value, right? From the very beginning through grades. But yeah, just finding ways of being okay with rejection, taking too long to submit something, right?

Giving yourself a reasonable timeline like Kevin was speaking to it’s okay to get quote unquote blocked. That ideas are very hard. Especially when it’s not your main focus, especially like when the world is literally burning down. And yeah, so that, and that is something that I had to sit down with recently and I think gets to this idea of impact versus prestige.

And we can go through all those different nested layers of what is prestigious, what is presti? Yeah. Again, like not to get too existential, but yeah. So I was stuck with something. I didn’t know how to write it. I was writing around it, it was like dripping with euphemism. I was so concerned of how it would be received and how it might be read.

Would it be like clear, would it be legible to someone else? And I was jumping 10 million steps of ahead of, before there was even a sentence on a paper. And right, like it was. Rooted in a feel of fear of failure, fear of being like, read differently than I wanted. And so I, I talked to like colleagues, I talked to like my writing, like peers and my like academic, like kin, right?

And I decided just to like free write. What would I say to myself if I was the only one reading it? If it was like my journal or like my disassociated poetry. And that’s where it, that’s where I got some like generative ideas flowing because it was honest to what I was saying because I was saying it to myself.

And I think when we, a lot of us that deal with multiple systems of oppression, right? Our writing about parts of ourselves, if not fully for ourselves. So yeah, that’s where I like, was able to move through. And it was for me, those imposed barriers or external barriers that were like driving me to just like really focus on the product but not the process.

So I was able to like, with the help of friends and coworkers, take a step back and play around with it right a little bit more and that became slow and that can be frustrating, but that was the impact that I was going for. Ultimately, it didn’t really matter what it said to prestigious institutions.

Yeah.

Heather Shea: I appreciate that. Z I’m gonna ask you to also respond if you can specifically around what makes a strong submission. And we can also deconstruct what strong is and all of that. But I’m really curious if you have some advice for scholar practitioners who wanna make a submission, but are like, is this good enough?

Z Nicolazzo: Yeah. Yeah. I think I, that’s a great question. I’ll give some very boring, basic logistical answers first, and then maybe expand on it a teeny bit. Hopefully with something more exciting for listeners. The boring answers are, some of the things that Kevin touched on and some of the things that Kelly touched on please make sure to attend to the aims and scope of the journal that you’re submitting to, or the publication site you’re submitting to.

A lot of the pieces that we end up bouncing back to authors from our desk at about campus just don’t align with our aim aims and scope around enriching the student learning experience. And so unfortunately, it’s a easy bump back for us. Also attend to things like author guidelines and writing instructions.

I know that sounds basic, but every journal has a website with all that information and I think when some people become. Very trained around academic writing. I’m one of those people too. We forget things like about campus uses a journalistic style of writing, not, we don’t use Intex, a PA citations, right?

So I think that some of those things can be really important on the front end to ensure that your piece has a better likelihood of moving into the review process. I would also encourage I, I would encourage folks to think about, I’ve been thinking as folks have been talking about Adrian Marie Brown’s work particularly her book Emergent Strategy.

She talks about this idea that small is all. I think that there are some ways that, especially. Beginning and I would e well I would say writers at all levels, right? Like even seasoned writers do this too. I think sometimes we maybe even more seasoned writers do this than novice writers, actually.

We think that we need to over promise, but then we actually can’t meet those kind of lofty goals or those big over promises that we make. And so think about small as all think about what’s the kernel or the contribution. I’m not interested in gaps in literature. I’m more interested in how do you extend upon or add to or develop richness or extra folds to conversations rather than thinking about, no one has talked about this, right?

And so yeah, thinking about small is all can be really powerful. And thinking about how your building upon stuff can be really powerful. I know many of us have worked with my dear friend and colleague, Dr. Chris Ren and she sometimes talks about salami scholarship, right? Like when you go to a deli and they shave salami really thin, make sure that there’s enough in a manuscript so that it’s unique and additive, but not that it over promises.

And then yeah you’re cooked right from the beginning. The other thing that I think may be potentially more exciting is, i, and Kelly is probably gonna giggle when I say this. Be weird with your writing. Be weird, right? If you wanna do weird stuff. And the origin story of this idea of weirdness with writing really comes from my very dear late mentor, Dr.

Peter McGold. Peter and I worked together. I had the good fortune of being at Miami of Ohio when Peter was there. I know that Antonio also did. And Peter and I used to take walks around town and grab coffee together. And in one of our walk-in talks, I was telling him how nervous I was about the upcoming job search that I was gonna be doing.

And he said, and he’s the only person who could ever say this to me and I would understand how he said it and all this kind of stuff. Folks who. We’re familiar with Peter, we’ll hear this in his voice, but he said, the the work that you do is pretty bizarre, so you’re not gonna get too many phone calls, but the people who call you will be really interested in your work.

And I didn’t take that as a slight, I just took it as like a Yeah. The work that I do is different and that’s okay. And he was right. I did not get many phone calls. The phone calls I did get, people were really interested in my work. And I think that I carry that with me and I share that story with students.

I’ve shared it with Kelly multiple times as we’ve been working on some things together to say. There are venues where you can do weird things, right? I might not have done weird things in certain journal venues, but there are other places, other publication avenues where I could do weird stuff and other opportunities that I could try some things out, so whether it’s that broken poetry that Kelly was talking about, whether it’s trying to do some different things around storytelling and narrating, there are loads going back to that idea, but there are loads of different publication venues that you get to decide what’s the register and tone you wanna use, and who’s the audience that you want to read your stuff so that you can try some things out.

Heather Shea: Awesome. That’s great. I yeah, I can definitely hear that voice as you were talking about it and also appreciate all of his scholarship in spaces that would, were not necessarily considered. But have really, I think, opened a lot of our eyes as to who are learners and who are, and educators and custodial staff Yeah.

And others on our campuses being, and that I think was groundbreaking in a lot of cases.

Z Nicolazzo: Yeah. Yeah. And I think that’s why he shared it with me and why I heard it in a particular way. Because I think it was almost like a like calls like kind of thing, right? Yeah. Like we both are doing weird things and Yeah.

So yeah. And truly like his work was, continues to be incredibly meaningful and ripple through the field in lots of ways, right?

Heather Shea: Yeah, absolutely. So let’s talk a bit about that applicability, because I do think we’ve named it at a couple different points in the conversation that, we hope as authors that our scholarship is effective or used or has a role in some way in shaping.

Both individual actions and decisions by institutional leaders as well as the larger field. Antonio, as you look at the landscape I’m curious about how publishing continues to play that role in illuminating new voices. And then what kinds of responsibilities do publishers have and educators and authors and editors for shaping those messages that are reaching the profession?

Antonio Duran: Yeah. So I’ll pick up a little bit what z just shared in terms of I’m not interested in gaps in literature. And I feel like that’s such a a common statement that we offer just to beginning students of a good res, good research addresses a gap in the literature. And I find that all too commonly fails to acknowledge the complexities of what can really be done through writing.

For me I definitely do see publishing continue to have an impact and shaping our field. I. I think before even getting to the writers, we as readers have a responsibility to actually engage with the research that is the research and scholarship that is being put out into the world.

And I think part of this is to pick up on what Kelly, they were sharing earlier about like the resistance to slowness in an ever moving capitalist society. So how do we allow practitioners the space to think alongside the scholarship that is emerging is is. My first kind of point of consideration as I think about the writers themselves how do we embrace work that that, that moves people?

And I feel like that’s part of imagery that Z was bringing up earlier as well. And I will. Admit that at times I have fallen into the trap of thinking that because we’re an applied field, usability is grounded in empiricism. And it’s not. And what, when I think about this I am inviting and encouraging people to do who does, who like do work that really challenges us to think and be and exist in different ways.

To not feel as though their scholarship is not rigorous or important enough. It definitely is. And I will say I oftentimes look to Z’s work for encouraging readers to. Think in different ways and to recognize the complexities of being. And so we need more of that. And I think our responsibility consequently to readers is to try to resist falling into formulas and falling into rote ways of writing for the sake of production.

And instead to invite being weird for to invite being forward thinking I was gonna say innovative, but then again, a SU has tainted all any language around innovation. Sorry. A SU folks. Not sorry. But yeah, those are my thoughts.

Heather Shea: Winter tenured it’s all good. Be critical.

I love that. Kevin, how about you? What do you, what role do you see publishing continuing to play and responsibility for shaping the profession?

Kevin Wright: Yes. So when it comes to this particular question again, z Kelly and Antonio have said so many incredible points and something that with, add on is making sure that we see publishing as a tool to create opportunity in the field as opposed to just advance ourselves as individuals in the field.

Be because, and I say that again, re repetitively because of the fact that I know so many folks are still contributing to the narrative of, oh, you’re published, so therefore you are amongst the elites and you need to continue using these, $200 GGRE words in your work to be taken seriously and to be authenticated, if you will, as a quote unquote professional.

And it’s just. So disheartening to see how many people who have beautiful minds and beautiful perspectives that they feel like it’s not worthy enough to be written down on paper, let alone read by the masses. So publishing definitely does continue to play a role a very prominent one itself in building the field.

And I do have a great sense of hope that because so many folks are starting to see more and more of the different ways that we can express ourselves through scholarly writing I see the field shifting accordingly. Granted, I feel that shift is not as fast as. The realm of scholarship and scholarly writing is shifting so quickly.

But I do have a great immense amount of hope that the field is going to shift accordingly based on the scholars that are coming into the field and are publishing and are breaking down barriers and are setting a, an example, a positive example of what it means to reimagine what we consider scholarship and research and academic scholarly writing.

Because even those, even that, that terminology itself can be very, minimizing and it can be very exclusive. So therefore, just making sure that people understand that what we right is coming from somewhere. It’s not just because we’re trying to, get another bullet point on our cv.

Now if you play that game, that’s your business, not mine. But I will say that it is important for us to not lose sight of why we even want to write who we’re writing for, and then who we’re trying to serve support and benefit because we have the audacity to put something on paper and put it out to the masses.

Heather Shea: Yeah. Said. I am going to combine the last part of this question with our next question ’cause I’d love to hear from all of you on this. But z I’m gonna start with you with kind of final thoughts as well as this question. First. What is keeping you up at night and what is exci, what is exciting you about the work ahead?

And then if you could invite listeners to this podcast into one next step what would that be? What would you encourage them to do? And also if you’d like to share with folks how to get in touch with you or how to get information about publishing through your resources, that, that would be great to ask or answer as well.

So keeping you up at night, what next step and how can people get in touch with you and Access Publishing?

Z Nicolazzo: Yeah I know that there have been several comments that some folks have made throughout the session today that really anchor my, what’s keeping me up at night Response. And that is just the current. State of the world. It’s hard I think, for me to be in a place as an editor, as an advisor to, to folks where I’m trying to concurrently create worlds of possibility when it feels like the world that we’re in is completely impossible.

And to hold those creative tensions at the same time. And I also, I think the thing that’s keeping me up about that even more is the fact that it’s not just out there, but it’s in here as well in terms of like our field, right? Like I see a lot of folks who are replicating the same sorts of harm and violences that we’re seeing externally.

For example, one of the things that I was thinking about early on, Antonio, when you were talking about whose labor is being used to do reviewing for editorial boards, I kept on thinking about technologies of whiteness where people are doing gatekeeping work through reviewing and editorial boards.

And I think that becomes really challenging and hard, right? That there are things that people. Rightly need in terms of their work. Publishing is a reality for many faculty particularly at particular institutions. And also there are folks who are saying they’re not citing the right people, quote unquote, or they’re not citing me, or they’re not, whatever it is.

There’s just a lot of whiteness and gatekeeping that happens, I think, with this process. And that’s, I think that’s a reflection and a reproduction of what’s happening globally. And so I think that’s really challenging for me. It’s challenging in my role as an executive editor of a publication. It makes me think a lot about how do I continue to create systems and processes to hold myself accountable?

How do Kelly and I do that with and for each other, with and for our editorial team? Yeah. And then what does that mean in terms of going back to feeling again? What does that mean in terms of the work that. That we wanna see, that we wanna produce. I I am someone who kind of gravitates towards this idea from Lisa Matsi.

She talked about this idea about vibrant data and she talks about wanting to be bruised by data where. The things that we read leave a mark on us even after we put it down. There are so few pieces that have literally moved me to tears, one of which was by my advisor, Dr. Elisa Abus, where she wrote a piece in the Journal of Lesbian Studies where she starts off with a Jewish prayer and talks about some of her histories.

And growing up as a Jewish girl, which of course is deeply meaningful for me as having not the same but similar experiences as a Jew. And also actually I might embarrass you a little bit, Kelly, but a piece that Kelly is currently writing right now that I had the joy of reading last week, which.

Like it, it’s one of those pieces that still gives me the chills that I, now that I’m thinking about it, I can feel my heart racing. I know that it was incredibly meaningful and I, yeah, can’t wait for other people to have that kind of affective response to this piece. And yeah, I guess what I’m excited about what keeps me up at night is the state of the world and how we’re reproducing it in our field.

What I’m excited about is for people to slow down and to write with feeling in ways that that, that help us all shed a few tears and think about deep possibilities for better today’s and tomorrows than we had yesterday’s,

Heather Shea: thank you z Antonio?

Oh,

Antonio Duran: yeah. I think I’ll put it simply by saying I invite listeners to tell the story that you think needs to be told. It sounds. Pretty contrite. And this something you may have heard before, but I really do think it, it stays true in this kind of moment. And for readers to not be so inculcated in what you have been told is scholarly writing.

I think Kevin has been talking about that quite a bit throughout in terms of, how form has been used against us. And how do we instead experiment with curiosity in terms of the the Journal of College Student Development. We encourage your submissions that you can submit at any time to z earlier point, just make sure to read our submission guidelines.

‘Cause it is the worst to have to be like, no, this is so good, but this is 40 pages and we don’t. Publish 40 pages and all that good stuff. I’ll, we will be on the lookout for your submissions. And if you have any questions about the writing process, publishing, whether it’s related to JCSD or not send me an email.

I’m always just an email away. And I always love talking with folks about their ideas. Thank you for the time and for letting me be here today.

Heather Shea: Of course. Thank you. Kelly, how about you? Final thoughts, keeping you up at night? Excited advice and talk a little bit about publication through about campus as well and how people can get in touch with you.

Kelly Ancharski: Yeah the things keeping me up not at night. We could do a whole podcast.

Heather Shea: Yes, we,

Kelly Ancharski: But yeah I z very nicely shouted out my work, but, the piece that Z was talking about is actually one that I just got back from presenting at a conference. And it articulates the method that I use in my research playing Ttrp GS as the form of data collection and not talking about that piece.

But what’s keeping me up at night is caring for the players that I am a part of the table. And as I like transition the experience of play to something that’s can often be static writing. But making sure that whatever happens with the implications or discussions or next steps that their stories are fully living in that document.

So that doing that, is what keeps one of the things that keeps me up at night. But yeah I bring up the other piece ’cause you mentioned it, but I also start the piece out saying that I’m exhausted. Yeah. And I, I encourage folks beyond submitting your piece, but finding like a writing group or a feedback circle, not necessarily to produce more work or be more productive, but finding other ways to be in community, to break ideas open.

Talk about the feeling of writing, asking questions to each other. I think that’s yeah, something that can be really impactful to help us through the, like exhaustion, the overwhelm of what it means to publish academically. And then for about campus you can join me for drop-in hours.

Heather Shea: I love this.

Kelly Ancharski: This is great. Yeah it’s on our website. Or you can email us to set up a different time about Campus Mag at gmail.com. I think it’ll be in the show notes for you. But yeah, there’s two hours every Tuesday that you don’t have to schedule anything. You can just come into the zoom room that no one’s usually in and talk to me, ask me any and all questions.

It’s a fun space, a space that sometimes we don’t get as, as scholars to just speak with an editorial team. So yeah, if that’s of interest to you, come and talk to me.

Heather Shea: I love that. Talk about lowering the barrier to entry. It makes it really accessible. So thank you about campus for doing that, and Kelly, for giving your time in that.

Z Nicolazzo: And shout out to Dr. Roman Christians for being the starter of that space, who is my managing editor previously. So yeah, thanks Roman, for starting that space.

Heather Shea: Gonna tag all of the people who we’ve given shout outs to today. All right, Kevin, for you, what are your final thoughts around those four different topics?

Kevin Wright: Yes, most definitely. In terms of what is keeping me up at night, there’s so many things, but to be brief irresponsible usage of AI technology that is keeping me up at night, something that I am looking forward to, something I’m very excited about is that I have worked with a a handful of institutions that are trying to be more mindful of the labor that is produced when it comes to publishing.

So I know that some institutions who have. The financial capacity to do so are providing professional development funds for people, almost like a stipend, if you will for people who are publishing. Granted, I know that this is not a common practice because money’s tight from place to place, but at least a handful of institutions I’ve been able to work with are creating opportunities where people can be at least compensated by their restitution because they are producing additional labor that is not a part of their for the most part, their primary duties and responsibilities.

So that way they can be recognized. Financially not just socially and academically for their labor. And in regards to A CPA books please do not hesitate to reach out to myself or Dr. Lela Mcle. We are one email away. We are more than willing to hop on a Zoom, call a teams call, a phone call, whatever, call with folks to explore the ideas that they have and then.

Yes. As it’s already been said before please review our guidelines on our website. Yeah, we’ve had people submit great proposals, but think, come to find out, they meant to submit a proposal for a book chapter as opposed to a full book, which is fine. And at the same time we. We pivot and we basically redirect them to a different outlet that may be more suitable for them, right?

Such as a journal or somebody else who’s doing a call for book chapters, so to speak. So please review the guidelines and then if you have people in your network that have already published, talk to them as well. Check in to see how the process was like for them. And, try to get diverse narratives and perspectives only because of the fact that everybody’s experience is different some good, bad and in between.

So it’s important to make sure that you’re getting that well-rounded perspective just so you are aware of what to be mindful of and what to prepare for as best as you can.

Heather Shea: Thank you so much. That’s the end of our time. Before I wrap up, I just wanna say once again, thank you to all four of you for joining today’s conversation, and also thanks to everybody who’s watching and listening.

As I mentioned at the beginning of the episode, we’ve re recently launched a Student Affairs NOW Patreon. Student Affairs now has always been more than a podcast. It’s a learning community for people who care deeply about higher education, student affairs. We have for the past five years created a space for conversations that inform, inspire and affirm the work educators are doing across the field.

And we’re incredibly grateful for the listeners, guests and collaborators who have make, helped make this community grow. Patreon gives us a chance to create even more ways for you to connect with the community, including discussion guide, facilitated book club conversations, bonus content sneak preview of the next three episodes, and also opportunity to shape future discussions.

So if these conversations have ever sparked an idea for you for your work, or helped you feel more connected to others in the field, we’d love to have you join us. You can learn more at the community at patreon.com/student affairs now. And huge thank you as always to Nat and Broey our incredible producer, Nat, your behind the scenes brilliance makes every episode possible, and we are so grateful for you.

Thanks again to our listeners and viewers for just being a part of this community. I’m Heather Shea. Thanks for watching and listening. Let’s make it a great week.

ACPA Books Call for Proposals

About Campus