Torch, Spring 2005

“Dr. Firmin, what in the world am I doing here among all these Ph.D.’s?” she whispered. I replied, “Have you come to trust me, Amanda?” “Yes,” she admitted. “Would I set you up for failure?” I asked. She winced. “OK, no.” I concluded, “We have a solid research study, and our data will back us. We can go toe-to-toe with every Ph.D. in this room.” With that, Amanda gave the smile I’m used to seeing. She pushed back in her chair a little, and though still nervous, appeared more at ease. We were the next presentation. Introductions were provided by the discussant, a recognized leader on the topic being presented who is assigned to dissect the paper and begin an open peer review and critique of it. Often the discussant will make recommendations regarding his/her opinion of the work’s suitability for journal publication. Typically he or she has advanced copies of the paper and ensures that challenging questions are asked. In prepping Amanda for the conference, I indicated my custom of allowing the student to do most of the presenting. I do not need added experience, but the student finds it highly valuable relative to professional development. Consequently, I advanced the slides while Amanda presented the entire research study. We drilled repeatedly beforehand. Amanda was well-prepared, and I’m proud to say that — although nervous — she did an excellent job. The challenging part followed. Valid and fair questions were asked, exposing some of the findings’ vulnerabilities, which all studies possess. I let Amanda field them, although at two points she was backed into intellectual corners. Both times I quickly stepped in and cited sources, referenced aspects of our data, and reasoned our way back to the conclusions we made in the paper. Amanda gave me a quick wink and smirk as if to convey, “If you leave me alone right now, then I will die a thousand deaths!” In the end, conference participants were quite pleased with our work. Their suggestions were taken under advisement as we revised the document. Within a year, the paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal. As we flew back to Cedarville, Amanda excitedly shared that the conference was a highlight of her CU academic experience. Her simple words, “Thank you, Dr. Firmin; I couldn’t have come this far without you,” made the entire experience worth it to me. We presented a second paper about six months or so later, and today Amanda is a Ph.D. student at Wayne State University. She related that her research experience was a salient factor in her selection as a graduate assistant, which will enable Amanda to graduate debt- free from grad school. Amanda’s experience is typical of Cedarville psychology majors who present at national research conferences. At Cedarville, research mentorship in psychology is a key focus. Cedarville is a teaching institution. Unlike research universities with their publish-or- perish mindsets, CU emphasizes classroom instruction and quality connections with students. Within the last decade in particular, however, teaching institutions nationally have undergone a change in genre. While the volume of research will never be expected to match those of their research- university counterparts, teaching colleges are generating more research than they have in the history of higher education. The reason for the change is student-driven. Graduate schools are increasingly expecting students to have conducted research as a criterion for admission. This is particularly true for highly ranked institutions and almost all doctoral programs. A few years ago, for example, the Cedarville department of psychology had five students and recent alumni accepted into psychology doctoral programs, and three were admitted to law schools. In addition, half of the graduating psychology seniors entered graduate school that year. Spring 2005 / TORCH 9