Podcasts

In a time when academic work depends so heavily on unyielding efficiency for maximum output, what does it look like when a team of researchers put compassion towards one another first, and find value in how the research itself is conducted?

Welcome back to the MAMM Report.

My name is Sloan, and I’ll be your host today on our episode titled The Lab Environment as a Feminist Space, we will be exploring the ways in which we focus on our sense of community as research assistants in every aspect of our research process. And joining me today in our discussion is.

Hi, I’m Renee Colucci. My pronouns are she her. I’m in my fourth year studying English and drama.

Hi, my name is Diana Arafi. My pronouns are she her and I am a student in English with a minor in history.

Hey y’all. My name is Tyler Dietrich. My pronouns are they them and I am a research assistant at ma’am, but like everyone else. But I’m also a geography student at Brock.

And last but not least, my name is Sloane Gray. And again, I am your host. My pronouns are he him, and I am the English language and literature program at Brock.

I’d like to bring it back to pillar for a second, just to give a better sort of rounder introduction of what the project is. I would like to give us an explanation. I’d love to. So Nam, which stands for mapping Ann-Marie MacDonald, which you’ll probably never hear us say the full thing for the rest of the episode. We’re always going to go back to Mam is a research project that brings together professors and students from the disciplines of geography, English literature, and digital humanities. We’re focused on studying the author and playwright Ann-Marie MacDonald creative works, and we’re exploring literary geographies by developing ways to produce interactive mappings of places, spaces, and events. Really importantly, we are doing all of this within a critical feminist framework that values each member of the team and unique expertise that we all bring, whether we’re undergraduates or graduate students or tenured professors, even. Thank you, Paula. That was an incredible introduction. Before we move any further, I’d just like to give a couple definitions out just to make sure that everybody is on the same page with some of the jargon that we’re going to be throwing around. If we can get definitions for interactive mapping and critical feminist frameworks, that would be fantastic. Yeah, I’ll take interactive mappings because I’m the geography student on this podcast right now. And so mapping is really a big part of what we do. Regular maps are pretty static. Once you’ve made them. They’re made, they’re done. They represent one slice, one moment in time, one moment in space and time. Um, an interactive map. On the other hand, you can play with it a little bit more. You can be a little bit more creative. And it really recognizes that space is not static. It’s not just a container where things happen to and around and in a space. Space is actually something that we construct, that we build and that we create every time we engage with or use a space. So an interactive map really kind of recognizes that and tries to show how different spaces and times can be represented in new ways for the critical feminist framework. I think Donna is a really good person to explain that. So if you want to take that away, for sure, thank you.

So critical feminist framework within the context of our lab, we kind of focus on intersectionality and specifically on gender, class, race and age and sexuality in the characters that we map and the fictional spaces that they interact in. Um, in the lab setting, we also foster a collaborative space in which we regard each other as equals. Those are beautiful guys. Thank you so much. Um, now that we have that sort of definition work, um, in our brains, why don’t we move on to what is important about what we’re doing? What is this like cultural significance? Why is this important work that we’re doing? I think, Renee, you’ll do a really great job if you want to take on that for us. Yeah. When we think about what the cultural significance is of what we’re doing, I think it all comes down to the fact that storytelling is a core part of human activity. It’s something that we’ve been doing since the dawn of time, to use a cliche phrase. And it’s always important to know whose stories are being told and which perspectives are being represented. And so looking at literature like that of Anne Marie McDonald, who is an author who tells many diverse, interesting stories by taking it apart and looking at analyzing it through different frameworks and theories helps us figure out what the significance is of her literature in particular, and why she is such a significant Canadian author.

Beautiful. Thank you. Um, does anybody else have anything to say on any reason why this is important work that we’re doing here? I see that you have something to say. Yeah. Um, I always have something to say, but something not to get too, too political about it. But what we’re seeing right now in the States, what we’re seeing in Alberta and across Canada is that authoritarian governments are banning books, and books are always banned because they know it makes a difference. They know that fiction incites imagination. They know that fiction incites critical thinking and fiction like Ann-Marie MacDonald’s, which, like Renee said, offers different perspectives, offers really varied and diverse stories and characters and settings that really contributes to someone’s imagination. And if we can imagine a better world, we can make a better world, but we have to be able to imagine it first. And that’s really where the study of fiction comes in. Here you bring up some really great points, Pilar. Now that we’ve talked about why it’s important to study storytelling in general, what makes it important to study Anne Marie as a Canadian author in particular? Yeah. So you bring up a good point as research assistants, probably the most simple and easy You reason to explain why we’re researching? Ann-Marie MacDonald is because our principal investigator, Dr. Neta Gordon, is researching Ann-Marie MacDonald, and Ann-Marie MacDonald is a Canadian playwright and writer and is best or perhaps best known for her debut novel, Fall on Your Knees, which was published in nineteen ninety six. And that novel won, or was the Giller finalist in nineteen ninety six, which was when it was published and then in two thousand and three was the Giller finalist as well for The Way the Crow Flies, which was also published in two thousand and three and was Ann-Marie MacDonald’s second novel. Awesome. Thank you so much, Donna. Um, well, now that we have the Emery part of mapping Emery out of the way, does anybody want to explain the mapping part of mapping Emery? I’ll take the mapping part again. Geography student really in my wheelhouse. Um, so mapping is really interesting in literature studies because the representation of space in fiction can tell us a lot about that fiction. Um, and sometimes, like I said before, space is seen as static, especially in disciplines outside of geography. And it’s kind of just reduced to the setting of the novel and it’s not examined in its own right. Um, so in this project, we’re trying to bring in a geographic lens in order to complicate the way that we talk about space in literature studies. So we’re now talking about things like how are people negotiating space? How are they behaving in different spaces? What are those social contracts that they’re bound by? And how do those change from space to space, from person to person, from context to context? And so we’re trying to map these really complex questions in a way that we’re drawing all the data from a piece of text instead of from a physical space. It’s just a really interesting kind of exercise. It’s great that you’ve mentioned Doctor Neta Gordon as well. This is a great time to introduce our other three primary investigators in Maine faculty contributors to the project as well. We have chair of the Digital Humanities Department, Dr. Aaron Mauro. We have geography Department professor Doctor Ebru Ustundag, and we have librarian Tim Ribaric as well. Reference librarian. We are referring to them here a little more formally as doctors, but we typically refer to them as Tim, Ebru, Aaron, and Neta. Um, which segues us nicely into our the sort of flattening of hierarchies in the way that we do our work around here. And I’d love to throw that over to Renee to get us started into our more open discussion on the way that our do our work. Absolutely. A typical academic research lab is based on seniority. There is a clear hierarchy with those who have the most seniority at the top, and those who have the least seniority at the bottom.

Our research lab, our hierarchy is knowledge based. That’s a huge part of the research that we’re doing. It’s part of our data feminism methodology that we’ve really integrated into our lab data. Feminism works to make the labor behind our work visible. We challenge those traditional hierarchies. We don’t rely on seniority. Our hierarchies are developed based on who has knowledge at the time. And so there are definitely been times where we’ve been doing work. And I can say, I don’t know, and I pass it off to somebody else. And that’s okay. Because in saying, I don’t know, I get to learn from somebody else. We all have a chance to have a voice in the room. No voice is left forgotten. And so whether you’ve been part of the team for a day, or whether you’ve been part of the team for a few years, or whether you’re a senior investigator, everybody’s voice is significant in the room. And I think that really applies to the primary investigators as well. I mean, like, this isn’t just between us research assistants. Although we are part of different disciplines and different departments, like there are times where somebody with an English background like me has something more to say than somebody in geography like Pilar. And then sometimes it’s our turn to speak, and there’s never any shame in not having that knowledge. Um, so much so that there are times when Neta doesn’t know something and leaves it to the geographers because it’s just not her discipline or times where Aaron is the one in the seat. But the minute that it becomes something that is outside of his discipline. There is no shame in stepping back, regardless of where you are in your degree. We’ve worked with master’s students. We’ve worked with undergrads. All of us here are either undergrads or in their teaching college years. Um, and, and, and being somebody with a doctorate, there’s, when it comes down to the knowledge that we have, the knowledge that you have is what takes precedence. For sure. I just want to pick up on something that you said, Sloan, of the fact that saying, I don’t know is okay. I feel like the phrase I don’t know, especially in a lot of like scholarly environments is sometimes criticized. And I think that something that’s very significant about our research environment is that saying, I don’t know is not criticized. It’s saying, I don’t know is an opportunity to learn more. It’s an opportunity to expand your knowledge base. And it’s essentially saying, I don’t know is opening a door. And that is part of the the creative production of our work. I think that this is a really good opportunity to, to talk about what type of things that we’ve produced. We’ve produced some really cool research products that each discipline alone wouldn’t have been able to do.

So for example, we made, we’re going to link to our website in the podcast bio, all that jazz, so you can all see this, but we made interactive maps with ArcGIS, but all the data that we mapped was really collected using the skill set of the English literature students. And then the digital humanities student helped us use Voyant and Omeka, two more programs that as a geography student, I had no idea how to use, but they really kind of led the charge on figuring out how to use those systems. And so we were able to integrate three kind of home bases of knowledge, three theoretical lens from digital humanities, geography in English. And we were able to create things that alone we couldn’t have come up with. But by working together, we made something like bigger than the sum of our parts. And I know we didn’t talk about the digital humanities research assistants too much, but now that we’ve kind of jumped into it, there’s also this concept in digital humanities where you click every button, and that kind of goes back to what we don’t know and what we’re trying to find out. So in our research lab, yes, we have a goal. Yes, we Yes, we have something that we want to reach, but that goal can change based on what we’re doing and what we are testing out in our labs. So that digital humanities concept of click every button, find out what you don’t know, ask each other collaboratively, which is something that you don’t see in an academic setting. Uh, working collaboratively and sharing information. And I think that’s something that’s really unique to our lab as well. Picking up on something that Donna said about bringing in those digital humanities methodologies. Donna, you mentioned how in the digital humanities, there’s more transparency of the work that’s being done.

And I think that that’s something that has definitely been a big part of the Mam team and something that especially like in the English discipline, that’s something that we don’t share a lot. Oftentimes when we’re sharing our work, we share the finished product that’s fully edited. And still when you hand it to somebody just, you know, to be safe, you go, it’s not that good. But here you go. Whereas in our research lab, we’ve put a focus on sharing those works in progress, of being open about having something that’s half finished or not done or whatever point in the process that you’re at. And I think that that is a huge part of why the why our research outputs have been so significant is the fact that we don’t wait until we’re done to get feedback. We’re constantly in flux, and we’re constantly getting input from other members of the team. And that’s that’s a big thing too, is getting input from other members of the team is, is welcomed. It’s it’s having those kind of scholarly debates is something that’s huge. And it ultimately makes our research outputs stronger. Working as a team makes us stronger.

Absolutely. And just to piggyback off that, Renee, um, I think that the vulnerability of a being able to say, I don’t know, and B being able to say, can somebody look at this for me? And, and being willing to have debates without any sort of feelings being work is what contributes to the environment that we’ve created. And that is a really big part of what we’re doing is the, is the environment and the collaborative, um, the collaborative way we go about things and the way that we are so willing to, to work with one another and hear one another out. And, and when there are times when people are, are too busy to do what, what they had initially taken on. There’s no ill will in any part of this that I think is really unique because if you’re working in an environment where output and, and being on time and staying in strict, very tight, very quick deadlines. It’s it’s hard to have a compassionate community of researchers there. It’s hard to to not feel contempt for your research partners that are slacking because you don’t think about it as slacking with us. You think about it as needing to step back so somebody else can step forward and help you out while you’re in a time of need. And it’s created such a really compassionate environment between us that is really part of like part of our, our, our outputs is the way that our community has been fostered. I just wanted to touch on kind of what you brought up, Sloan with vulnerability and how that’s kind of modeled for us as junior researchers by our senior researchers as well. I feel like there isn’t a fear in our lab of saying, I don’t know. And that’s between us research assistants, but also our principal investigator, Dr. Gordon, Many a times would say, I don’t know how to do this. And I think that’s very vulnerable in a setting where she is supposed to be the one in charge and quotation marks in charge and knowing what to do. But instead she comes to us, to her colleagues, to Ebru, to Erin, to Tim and say, says, I do not know. I do not understand. I am, you know, freaking out over this, I need help. And I think that vulnerability is what really got us to kind of become closer to one another and understand that, oh, this person needs a break right now. This person has a lot going on in their plate. I can pick up that work because I am available right now. I have that knowledge right now. Oh, this person doesn’t understand something. Oh, Neta doesn’t understand something, but maybe I can help. And I think that’s also something that I really wanted to highlight. I know that we talked about it earlier as well, but I think that’s really kind of like what makes our lab really special and something that’s really important to highlight in this episode of the podcast. Okay. Um, another thing that I think, I think I want to expand a little bit on what the environment of the lab is because we’re talking a lot about how great it is, but I’m going to give some examples now. So because we are working, we’re using critical feminist theories, looking at things through a gendered and intersectional lens. We also try to inhabit the frameworks that we’re basing our analyses on. So we try to embody them. We do this by, like Sloan said, creating a compassionate environment and the actual concrete ways that we have tried to enact feminist values in our work are things like flexible deadlines, flexible work hours. You work when you’re available, not more. You’re not forced. You don’t have to be in person. You come when you’re available. We have remote options. We have community sessions where you’re able to work with other people. We also, because of this environment, we’re trying to know each other as whole people. We’re trying to get to know each other outside of the academic context, outside of the kind of stressful school and research context, so that we can understand and take take care of each other. Really. Donna. I think another thing that I wanted to point out was also the transparency aspect in which we are always open and communication and communication with each other outside of the lab as well. So we have our own chats where we talk to each other and everyone’s on it, so we know what’s going on. We have a shared, uh, SharePoint where we have all of our work. So even if I didn’t work on a specific paper or on a specific conference or something. I still have access to it and I can still see what other people are doing. And I think that transparency also goes back to how we can connect outside of the academic setting. Of course, all of these files are academic. All of the things are for the lab, but there’s a sense of shared respect and shared space as well within the lab and outside of the lab. Then I want to pick up on what you said about the transparency of the research environment. I think that that transparency is what has allowed us to essentially deconstruct that competition in the research lab. Sloan, you talked about it a bit before of how our lab, we don’t feel as though we’re in competition with somebody else. We don’t feel like I constantly have to prove myself to be there. We do. We do our work well because we want to contribute, not because we want to be better than somebody else. It’s a huge thing that it’s not buying in that like that buying in is just huge. Like for full transparency, we’re recording this podcast on a Friday night. It’s 7:53 pm. The Blue Jays game is about to come on, and being here fulfills my social battery at the same time that it does fulfill my academic scholarly battery I have. I want to make sure I don’t. I wrote them down. I want to make sure I get them because I. Two examples is one I found the other day that I can Google myself and I pop up like our, our. It’s crazy. It’s crazy. Like if I Google myself, do I pop up as a research project pops up? Guys, we’re real academics. I haven’t even graduated university yet. Oh, and I can Google myself as being published. That goes back to like our voices. Matter of the fact that if I wasn’t part of this research team, I wouldn’t have any publications that my name was on them. But the fact that our primary investigators have made an effort into adding our names into things, our names are cited, our names are on the website to bring in a personal example of just kind of the way that, like, my perception of myself as a significant mind has changed as being part of the research project. Way back in first year, I was seventeen, fresh out of high school and in high school. Those hierarchies are very much in play of this is your teacher and this is the way that you refer to them, and you are a student. And there’s a very specific hierarchy to high school. And so I remember going into my very first English class of university, it was a class with Doctor Gordon, and I’m in the big Sean O’Sullivan Theatre. And I make it a point to just kind of say good morning and good afternoon to my professor. I’d like to greet people. And so Doctor Gordon was coming down the stairs and I go, good morning. And she turns to me and she goes, hello? Who are you? And I go, I’m nobody. And that was the genuine response that came out of my mouth. And I was mortified. But it’s the fact that that was my that was my genuine response of I’m nobody. Whereas now I can Google myself. And now you’re a real academic, Renee, apparently. And it’s crazy. And it’s part of like the stuff that we do in our research team is the fact that being being a junior investigator in a typical research environment, I mean, I, I can’t, I can’t say for certain because I haven’t been part of a, any other research environments other than this one. But I know that something significant about our lab is the fact that there is an effort made to put our names into things. I know that when we go in to help out with something we are told and your name will be put on this. And it’s it’s insane. Like it’s, it’s, it’s such a great feeling to feel that our work is, is visible.

Yeah. It’s, it’s, it’s a really spectacular feeling to, to, to feel like what you’re like, your contributions in every single way matter not only on the level of like, you can tell that you’re being heard, um, in our meetings and, and when we’re together, but in, in actual like publishable work, like we are credited. Um, and we’re often like, if, if, if a conference is held and that is not the one that gave it Neta’s name isn’t first, it’s, it’s whoever was doing the most amount of work. It’s, it’s very, it really centres us when we, when it’s worth being centred and when we’re the ones doing the work and I know that you have had other experience in like research labs. Is there anything that you would like to add about your time in another research lab in the way that it, it, it is different between this, not necessarily that it’s better or worse, but just that it’s a different experience. Yeah for sure. So I actually had a really fantastic experience in another research lab before I came to the MAMM Project. And that was the Water Resilience Lab still run at Brock under the guidance of Doctor Julia Baird and Doctor Gillian Dale. And what was important about the Water Resilience Lab was that it was also run under a feminist framework. So they did the same thing. If everyone’s names were on the paper, everyone was credited and they were credited in order of like kind of the importance of your work. Um, something that both of these labs share is a really, really big emphasis on labour feminism. So something that’s really big in academia, but kind of all over is the invisible, invisibleization of labour, especially feminine labour. So for example, emotional labour, things like remembering people’s birthdays, supporting people, even managing your own emotions at the workplace so that you are presenting kind of your customer service persona, or you’re acting in a way that is acceptable. A lot of that work is shouldered by women and minority people, and a lot of that work goes uncredited. But in our lab, in the MAMM team, we actually intentionally leave ten to fifteen minutes at the start of all of our meetings to kind of perform that emotional work as a collective. We check in with each other, we make each other tea, we ask how people are doing and we mean it genuinely. If you want to give a surface level answer, that’s fine. We’re not going to, you know, force it out of anyone with a crowbar. But we want to know. We genuinely want to know how our labmates are doing. We genuinely want to know how we can support them. And so that is built into the structure of our lab, something that one of our other research assistants, I believe it was Emily Mills. She’s a graduate student. I believe what M said to me recently was that it’s really easy to want to be a feminist, and it’s really hard to enact it when the systems are against you. But something that Em said that really that’s something that she said that really stuck with me and that made me think about, ma’am a little bit differently because it’s easy for me to be a feminist right now. It’s easy for me to care about my lab mates. It’s really easy for me to, you know, if they want to step back, I can step in and I can kind of step up and take some of that role on because the way that our principal investigators, Neta and Erin and Ebru, the way that they have built this lab, they encourage and incentivize that kind of pro-social behaviour. If I could just add in to that, I think I just want to add in like a real life example of that, that pro-social behaviour is the fact. So we’ve been on this team since I’m going to call it the prequel, and we got the chance to work together outside of the ma’am team this summer. And I remember that as we were starting that I hope I’m not kind of calling you out here, but I remember that you you came to me and you said, oh, like, I was really worried. I didn’t want you to think that I was like, following you around or something. And I remember telling, you know, I was so excited, like when I got the text from you going, hey, you’re working here this summer. And I said, yeah. I was like, oh my gosh, I really hope she’s working here with me. This will be so fun. And it was our lab environment that kind of made that connection possible of like, we’ve laughed together. We cried together. And like, there’s so many different things that we get to experience with our lab mates because we allow for this. We, we allow us to be people in the workspace. And I think that that is a huge thing is that we’re not we’re not coming into the lab acting as if we we know everything and afraid to say that we don’t. We come in as people and we come as we are, and we present ourselves with whatever we have to give that day, whether it’s one hundred percent, whether it’s fifty percent. And I think that that is, is huge. Is, is that that come as you are mentality of knowing that we are accepted in the lab with whatever we have to offer that day. That is what has allowed us to form these incredible connections. And I do believe that when we can be honest as ourselves in the workplace, we’re able to share our, like, genuine mulling over of ideas in our head that make visible our thought process, that allow people to add into that, if that makes sense. No, absolutely. Um, I think one of the biggest, like most influential moments for me throughout the project was how all four of us, um, spent a really large chunk of the summer, you know, in like two times a week, one time a week, evenings working on the project together, um, all the way through the summer for a good couple months. And we were making each other tea and we were working through work and Nedda had to make sure that we were staying on topic. Um, and, and I think that so much of what has, like what I hope is coming across in the way that we’re talking to each other on the podcast was formed and built over the summer. And it so much of what like we were focused on work. Sure. But there was still a lot of importance in the fact that what we were doing was bond building like that. That was bond building between us. That is a really a really important part of our process. It’s one of our one of our research outputs is the work that we do. Um, like Neta has given conferences and is working on papers and all of this stuff. And we’ve done focus groups on, on the way that we interact with each other as an output. People are interested. I think it was a digital humanities conference. As far as I know, people are interested in the way that we interact with each other, though our methodologies and the way that we are crafting our our interrelatedness in the way that we work with one another is something that’s genuinely interesting. And it’s not something that people get to have a lot of the time. And I do think that it’s important to bring up that the shirt grant that we’re working on allows what we’re doing to happen in a much easier way to bring up what M said, um, again, is that it’s hard to enact feminism in a structure that doesn’t, that really, really doesn’t want you to, um, and the shirk grant that we’re working on has given us a handsome chunk of money to make sure that we have the time to be compassionate about people’s circumstances and to push our deadlines and to work in a way that is, is, is mutable and that this is a chance that we’re allowing. Like we are allowed to be compassionate to one another and show up for one another. How, however, we are that not a lot of people get to have. And I think that’s something that we’re we’re interested and we’re going to try to, you know, bring up throughout the podcast is like, how can we make sure that what we are able to do, because we have a grant that allows us to, to explore this work. How do we take this beyond this specific circumstance and into a world that is a little less forgiving and a little less flexible with our ideas. Yeah, I’ll take that one on. So for our listeners who might not know, the shirt grants is s s h r, it stands for the Social Science and Humanities Research Council. It’s a funding agency, um, federal funding agency that gives out money so that people can conduct research that contributes to society. Um, the man project did receive a sizable fund from the Shark Insight grant. And that is kind of what pays our wages because for us, this is a job. It might not feel like it, it never feels like work to me. Um, but it’s a job. At the end of the day, we get paid to do it and we get paid to take care of each other. We get paid to care about each other. We get paid to, you know, enact all of these frameworks that we are thinking about. Another big part of what the shark Grant has allowed us to do in our research space is to focus a lot of our research through a collaborative, consensus based methodology framework, and to pull in a specific example of that, I want to talk about when we had we had done a first pass through of collecting data from Andrew MacDonald’s novel fame, and once we had finished our first pass through, a meeting was called where Neta sat us down and said, what are some terms that worked? What are some that didn’t work? And I know that everybody was in the meeting, and she took us through a lot of different frameworks of where you can expand more on the, the o, the intimacy and like the geographical, the relationality, right? That’s what you’re talking about. Yes. Thank you. Yeah. So one of the things that Ebru was talking about in that meeting, because I remember, was the different ways that we relate to people in different spaces. Absolutely. Yeah. And I think that that in that meeting, we were all working towards figuring out what terms would work better for our next pass through. And I think that that’s significant is that the meeting was called for that, rather than those terms being decided by someone sitting isolated in a room. That’s that collaborative, consensus based methodology at work is that we made sure that when we left the room, there was an agreement for what terms would be continued, what terms we would continue to use, what terms we would change. And that’s a huge part of what that short grant has allowed us to do. It’s given us the space to to take the time to really work together and just kind of allow our work to be in flux sometimes until we find something that genuinely works rather than trying to find something because we might be. But rather than trying to find something quickly because we might be like, pressed for time, just building off what René and Pilar have discussed about kind of like coming to a consensus and in collaboration. I know, um, I was at that meeting as well, and I remember that decisions weren’t made on the spot. And we made sure that the people who were not in that initial meeting or that initial brainstorm also had the chance to learn about what we did. So us having that knowledge from that brainstorm would take that knowledge to the other group and say, oh, this is what we came up with. And that group also had the opportunity to discuss what they thought. So if someone was against or someone wasn’t too sure about a term that was in our glossary, they would go and say, oh, how about this term instead? And that is also part of our collaborative consensus space research methodology, where it’s not a group of people and we choose on the spot, but it was over multiple days and multiple groups as well. You know, with the amount of people that we have on the team and the way that things just sort of like move through stages and everybody gets a part, it comes back to the idea of, of the interdisciplinary nature of our project and that not everybody, you know, everybody has a has a specification in different things. It’s really, um, put out a, a, a vast amount of different outputs. Um, none of our work is the same. We don’t really have a lot of papers necessarily. We do conference stuff, but the, the breadth of the work that we do and the amount of outputs that we have that are vastly different from one another, I think is a really fascinating part of our project in a, in a testament to the strength of having an interdisciplinary project that focuses on so many different things. Um, for example, my first sort of output on the project when I started in my dressed out of my first semester, first year, um, was with Omeka, which is a library like cataloging system in an archival system. And my task was to go through Ann-Marie MacDonald’s prep work and research for the way the crow flies. And, um, I was doing transcriptions. I was writing metadata for, um, that, that sort of explained what each sort of piece of, of information, handwritten notes, drawings, books, life magazines, um, what everything was in a way that was searchable and findable to other people. And that was completely separate from what, um, the sort of data collection team was doing at the time. I don’t know if anybody wants to jump in with any other research outputs. I think I was the only person that did stuff with Omeka in that time. So I’ll pass it on. There’s definitely been a lot that we’ve done. And again, it’s very is very collaborative. And so it’s, it’s definitely hard to say sometimes like, oh, I’ve helped with this. I’ve helped that sometimes I tend to think more in a, we, um, but when I think about it. Oh yeah, definitely a we. Um, but when I think about it, um, I know that I’ve definitely helped with the data collection for the way the crow flies for fame for, uh, both drama works as well. I’ve also helped with the voice work. Um, I was also a participant in the conference presentation last spring. There have been a number of different things. And again, because it’s only sometimes it’s hard to narrow them down. Um, I do remember working on ArcGIS for a while, um, of doing some of the route mapping. We also did a brief stint of work with story maps, which I don’t think that we carried through until the end, And. But I do remember being part of a like a working session on that in the, uh, in the early days. I also wrote a blog post with page, um, where we talked about when Andrew McDonald came to visit the first time. And in that blog post, we talked about how we did a, like a live data collection session to kind of show Andrew McDonald what, what our work looked at, looked like at that stage. So I’ve worked on a bunch of different things. I’ve worked on data collection for like literary and geography analysis of phase one of Andrew MacDonald’s novels. I worked on this podcast. I also have worked on some ArcGIS mapping of the data that was collected and something that, um, Dina Sloan, Renee and I all worked on that were, we were really excited about was we actually got to present, a talk at the English Student Association’s undergraduate conference at Brock. And that was really fantastic. And that was, I think, for all of us, our first published conference proceeding where we were first authors. So that was really cool, really cool to be given that opportunity as an undergrad. Donna, any last things that we haven’t covered that you were part of? You were a part of most of these, but if there’s anything we missed, throw it in. Yes. I did the data collection for fain and the Way the Crow flies, like Renee and I also did the dramas, which I don’t know if we named them, but they are the Arabs. Mouth and Balmoral by Anne Marie McDonald also did some funny artwork. Um, some preliminary ArcGIS and story maps work and of course the essay conference that I did with Pilar and Renee and which Sloan kind of hosted for us as well. So I believe that is it as far as I can think of. I know we’re throwing around a lot of terms that don’t necessarily mean much. There’s lots of mapping involved. There’s lots of visualization of data. Um, we haven’t, um, we haven’t even talked about the, um, Brock press, uh, Cameron’s articles that we’ll link as well. This is not our first time talking about our methodologies. Um, we will have links for all of this as well in the, um, like data output session in the um specifications under the podcast information if anybody is curious. But otherwise I think that we’re, we’re just about done. Any last, any last words before we wrap everything up? Or are we, are we good? I have one last thing to say. One last thing that I want us to think about and that I want all of our listeners to think about, is what we can do to carry those these feminist frameworks forward into other spaces in our lives. How can we all act with a little bit more grace towards our coworkers? How can we all make sure that the invisible labor that they’re doing is being acknowledged and compensated? How can we make sure that we’re taking care of each other? I think those are those are really important things that I’m going to carry forward from the man project, because this is our last year of the project. And I know that you guys all are, too. And I think that’s a really important thing to think about for everyone. Absolutely. I couldn’t have put it better myself. Thank you. Well, in that case, I think that we are just about done here. Um, thank you everybody for listening. I appreciate if you’ve come this far. Um, I would like to thank all of my co-hosts. I’d like to thank Allison as well. We’ll do a full formal credits at the end. I think that that is a wrap for us. Thank you so much for listening. Um, and hey man, report part two. Signing off, signing off, signing off. Hang on.