 Good afternoon. Oh, this is a faithful group. So we are so glad that you are here with us for this very last panel of this symposium. It's been an exciting symposium. Have you enjoyed it? Excellent. Excellent. Well, this afternoon is the last panel. We decided what we wanted to do was have some fun with our topic. Our topic for this afternoon is innovative methodology. And as all of you know, Michigan has been just a hotbed of discovery in terms of various methodologies for doing cutting-edge research. And what we wanted to do with this panel was put together a number of alum from the university who are doing creative and cutting-edge innovative research. And that's going to allow them to talk specifically about methodology. Not so much their findings because they could do that too. These are very accomplished scholars and that they have been doing work that we think you'll find intriguing. So that's why we wanted to put this together and they wanted me to remind the audience that I told them that they were supposed to have fun with this presentation. So that's what we want to do. So what I'm going to do is just introduce basically by name and affiliation all of our speakers for this afternoon. We have four. They're going to present and then we'll have a panel discussion. We wanted to make sure that we were going to be leaving enough time so that we could interact and have a discussion around some of the questions you may have about the work that they're doing because I think it's all very creative and we're delighted they're with us. Our first speaker for today is going to be Shinabu Kiriyama and he is the Robert B. Zients Collegiate Professor of Psychology here at the University of Michigan. He's a graduate of the social psychology program here in psychology. I have to say that because at the time that we were here I'm also a social psychologist from psychology. The sociology program also had a social psychology program. So we are the psychologist side of social psychology. I didn't even introduce myself. I'm Cleo Caldwell and I'm the moderator for this particular panel. I'm a faculty over in the Department of Health Behavior and Health Education at the School of Public Health. Our second speaker is going to be Enrique Neblett, Associate Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience. He's currently at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He's a graduate of our clinical psychology program. So you can see some of the diversity that we have here on the panel. He'll be followed by Amy Schultz and Amy is a professor in the Department of Health Behavior and Health Education at the School of Public Health. And Amy is a sociologist. So we wanted to have some diversity in the disciplines as well. And then finally we have with us, Belinda Tucker, who is a professor of psychiatry and bio-behavioral sciences, University of California at Los Angeles. And Belinda was social psychology as well. So see little bias here, but we're all interdisciplinary, which is another strength of the University of Michigan when we think about the type of research that happens in the world. So we wanted to highlight the contributions of some of our innovative researchers in the social sciences who are graduates of the University of Michigan. And that's what this panel does. So please join me in welcoming all of them, because they're going to flow through. And at the end of their presentations, we'll take your questions. So how can I get my slide? Oh, thank you very much for a wonderful introduction. I'm very, very pleased to be here. I've been here for quite a number of years. I initially, well, my degree was from 1987 here. And I had come from Japan. And I think I came here in 1982. When I came here, people were very nice. Oh, Shinobu, welcome. Which do you like, red or white? It took me a while to figure out that they're talking about wine. And then second, I was just astonished that people didn't prepare the best wine for me from the very beginning. Well, I'm just, this may sound a little bit strange because back in Japan, there was no practice like making a choice. And I didn't imagine that asking somebody to make a choice is a polite thing to do. So anyway, from the very beginning, I found this cultural difference very interesting. And in my own research, since then, I have investigated how deep sociocultural practices, meanings, and maybe social structure can go under the skin. So that's the theme I'm going to elaborate on today. And in the recent, more recent years, I have investigated this by using neuroscience method, as well as biomarkers and so on. And today, I'd like to discuss some neuroscience of it. Now, I displayed this, this word, phrase cultural neuroscience, and that's a new field of research that essentially is intended to address this question. How is nature nurtured? That is nature, in this case, brain or body might be nurtured. And there are many different ways in which culture can influence the brain. Well, maybe you might imitate or you might mimic others' behavior. You might conform. Obedience might be another way in which culture can influence your behavior. But in addition to all this, some form of reinforcement can be very, very significant. So once behaviors are whatever you do, making a choice, not making a choice, conform to cultural norms, and then those behaviors may be reinforced. Now, this obvious notion seemed to have very significant implications because once the behavior is reinforced, all the neural circuitries, neural connections recruited to produce this behavior may also be reinforced. And from the very beginning, people, individuals, engaging in the social environment in a variety of different ways, and the social environment provide feedback which can reinforce all the neural connections which are used. And this can be repeated, this will be repeated in finite amount of time, resulting in potentially some significant effects on the brain and everything else. Now, in this work, we have focused on two prototypical cultural groups. One we call independent culture. Here, there are many tasks such as making a choice, for example. But in addition to self-promotion, self-actualization, freedom, achieving autonomy, those are some of the prototypical tasks which define this cultural context, which is very different from where I was coming from, say, interdependent culture where self-sacrifice for the group, obligations and duties are very important in social harmony is the ultimate value. And as you might imagine, that the first kind of tasks are more relatively more prevalent in, say, Western cultures, but the second ones are relatively more commonly Asian cultures. Now, these cultures are extremely diverse. No question about this. But once you look into those prototypical tasks, which are existing in different cultural contexts, you may notice that there are some common themes or common things which are involved. So, in the case of independence, it's very important to manage one's own preferences, goals, attitudes, and so on while monitoring what might make sense for me to do. Essentially, what this means is that you are managing reward contingencies to choose the best thing possible. Now, in curious way, interdependence involves something kind of opposite. You have to manage social expectations and normative requirements. So, this often requires down-regulated or inhibiting or suppressing or deprioritizing this desire's preferences and priorities. Now, what does this have anything to do with neuroscience? Well, there's one very interesting implication, because calculating reward contingencies, establishing personal preferences, making judgment and decisions by using values, preferences, and so on, those are pretty diverse set of tasks, but many of them are often linked to one particular brain region called orbit frontal cortex here, just above your eyes. Now, our work is motivated by this great insight from this classic icon of neuropsychology, Donald Hebb, who essentially said neurons that fire together, wire together. That is, neurons are activated simultaneously. They tend to be connected, and this insight has recently been used to investigate neuroplasticity. Now, evidence is mounting that essentially if you're engaging some specific set of tasks, say a playing piano or playing go or chess or driving a cab for 20 years in a complicated city like London without using one when more than navigation device was not quite available. Those can result in significant effects on the cortical volume of specific areas of the brain. Now, apply this idea to what I said about culture. You might begin to see that if various neurons in OFC fire together because those neurons are often involved in the culture tasks prevalent in independent cultures, and then while those neurons may wire together. What does that mean? Well, given this neuroplasticity literature, you might expect that OFC may show some increase in gray matter volume over time. Now, conversely, if various neurons in OFC are prevented from firing given the ways in which culture works and then they may not wire, OFC may show a decrease in gray matter volume over time. Now, is that true? Well, in order to investigate this, this is our initial study. It just came out. We scanned about 135 Japanese. Some are in college age, but most of the subjects are real people after college. We used this method called VVM, kind of standard methods to investigate a major cortical gray matter volume. We administered a bunch of questionnaires including a scale of independent and interdependent self-control. Here, interdependence control is measured by items like my happiness depends on happiness of other people, for example. Now, what we did was to use these scales one at a time to see if this scale, interdependence, might predict cortical volume of different areas of brain. Now, you might be surprised that you end up having many, many correlations if you carry out analysis like this. However, brain is very complicated thing. There are so many neurons or voxels in your imaging. And as a consequence, you really have to do very rigorous statistical control. Once you do this, only a few areas survive the statistical assault. And one particular finding we got was this. Essentially, those two, well, this is this view of the brain. Essentially, you catch a brain here and look the brain up. So, those two regions are orbit of frontal cortex right here, right above your eyeballs. And this region shows negative association with the interdependent self-control. What this means is that more interdependent folks have relatively smaller OFC. And this after controlling for total brain volume, age, gender, and in this case, socioeconomic status, educational achievement. Now, out of this, you might expect that there might be some systematic cross-cultural difference. Oh, okay. Five minutes. Cross-cultural difference because we know that Asian people are relatively more interdependent. It might be the case that OFC volume is less for Asians as compared to European Americans. Well, we did this. And as it turned out, if you do whole brain analysis, there are many areas actually, which are clearly differentiated between European Americans and Asians. But one of those is OFC, orbit of frontal cortex. Here, OFC here. OFC here. Here. And also here. So, in order to investigate whether we might be able to replicate previous finding, we extracted this particular OFC region of interest and see if this might correlate with interdependent self-control. And actually, this correlation was significant and we replicated it. Now, from this, you can see that Asians are more interdependent and OFC is relatively less. Now, really interesting question is whether this correlation might justify any causal inference. It's very hard. I don't have to give you one hour lecture to make this particular point. Now, how can you address this? Well, one way we address this was this. Maybe we might be able to use genetics to address potential significance of environmental influences. Why is that? Well, actually, in the recent years, people have identified a set of alleles, genetic variants, which appears to support environmental influences. So, for example, some alleles, some dopamine genes might increase the ability to learn some aspects of culture. And maybe if you can show this genetic moderation, it might be one way to make some inference about the impact of environmental influences. So, one particular gene we have looked into is DRD4, because we know that some variants are non-carriers. Seven repeat, two repeat, there's no point in explaining this. Alleles associated with greater ability of learning are contrasted against non-carriers to see if the cortical volume difference in OFC might be more pronounced among carriers as compared to non-carriers. I hope you get the logic. So, this is what we got and very interesting. Essentially, we replicated cross-cultural difference in OFC volume, but this difference was significant only among carriers of this particular type of DRD4. Now, I need to finish. One particular interesting finding, which I will keep it to myself. However, I'll show you the slides, is the effect of time among Asian born Asians. We tested those Asians in the United States and they had spent varying amount of time in the United States. So, if you look into the effect of time, this may be another way of explore whether there might be some systematic effects of exposure to new culture on the cortical volume and here's the data. And very simply, there's a very interesting initial evidence indicating that exposure to this new Western culture seemed to encourage growth of OFC, but this is true only among those people who are genetically predisposed toward learning. So, let me conclude. So, along with whole bunch of things we and many other people have done in this area of research, it's very clear that culture is powerful. That's very important. And now effects of culture has been extended not only to functional aspects of brain, but also more structural aspects of the brain. And today I had no time to talk about disparity, discrimination and so on, but I hope you see the connection here. And finally, one second, why neuroscience? I hope I illustrated the significance of neuroscience in social and behavioral research and there are many different ways to frame this, but I think really one take home message about this issue is that essentially brain is a great storage of socio-cultural experiences. And therefore, even though you may not be able to remember exactly what happened to you when you are in the first grade or even in preschool, might be possible to look into the brain to investigate the trace of socio-cultural influences and that's where real value of neuroscience seems to lie. So, thank you very much. There'll be time during the question and answers to get more information because I'm interested in that link with discrimination from all of our speakers. Okay, good afternoon everyone. Everyone sounds sleepy or something. Hopefully I can wake you up a little bit. I am honored to be here this afternoon and to start us off, Cleo told us we had to have fun with this. I went through the archives of my photo pictures and came up with this picture from 2006. This is at my defense. So, on, it was a Wednesday, February 15th, 2006. I underwent one of the toughest and challenging intellectual experiences of my graduate career. I was seated across the table from some of Michigan's greatest minds, some of whom are in the audience, Liz Cole, Laura Conewood, Robert Sellers, David Williams, Woody Neighbors, so on and so forth. Fortunately, things turned out well. Although I can still channel the modicum of embarrassment I felt, when after the defense, my mom went up to David Williams and said, wow, you sure asked some tough questions. My dissertation was entitled Racial Identity and Coping and Context. I was interested in the protective function of racial identity. So, how could the significance and meaning of race to individuals act as a protective factor in the context of discrimination? And I was really intrigued by this idea that the centrality or the importance of race to oneself concept could mitigate or counteract the deleterious impact of discrimination. So, in the dissertation I was interested in looking at how different aspects of identity would relate to coping and really thinking about individual differences. What are the situational factors and other individual factors that influence how Black youth cope with racism? About three weeks after this picture was taken, I received word that I would be a recipient of a National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship. And I would have the opportunity to study with Dr. Jules Harrell at Howard University, who is one of the foremost thinkers on racism and stress. And the exciting thing about studying with Jules is that he is also a psychophysiologist. I had been increasingly reading the racial disparities literature with interest. And I was intrigued by this fact that African Americans, when you looked at life expectancy, disease morbidity, all these things were at the bottom. And I wanted to understand why that was. Studying with Jules would be a perfect opportunity to kind of connect the sort of psychological processes with the biology, to understand a little bit more about how exactly racism leads to poorer health outcomes. And then a more specific question I was interested in was whether or not racial identity and some of the other protective factors that I had studied as a graduate student, so things like racial socialization, things like Afrocentric worldview, would act as a protective factor in the same way for biological outcomes as they might for psychological and physiological factors. So off I went to Howard and spent two years there. And during that time, thought about how we could do this effectively. A lot of it was actually figuring out the experimental methodology and less about actual findings. But one of the challenges of studying individual differences and responses to racism is that it presents a number of unique challenges for the experimental methodologist and for the psychophysiologist. How do you study racism in a laboratory context? Fortunately, there had been some work done in this area by Jules and others. And he trained me up in something we call the visual imagery paradigm. So the visual imagery paradigm is a paradigm in which you have participants come into the lab and imagine instances of racism as if the individuals are actually experiencing the racism themselves. There's evidence to suggest that these analogs are similar to the actual experience of racism. At least that's what the literature argued. And so we had folks come into the lab and listen to these different vignettes and we measured their physiological responses as they imagined and processed these events. So to give you some idea of what a participant might hear, here's one scenario. You are driving along a suburban street when a car like yours screeches past you at high speed. Then you see a police car behind you with its red lights flashing. To your surprise, the white policeman pulls you over and begins to berate you for speeding. You feel your heart pounding in your chest as you realize his mistake. Muscles tensing, you try to explain, but he cut you off saying you N-word are all the same. And in the vignette, we didn't say N-word, we actually used the racial slur. While struggling to control your temper, you sit fuming to yourself while the policeman writes the ticket. And we would say start imagining the scene from the beginning of the description. There was a lot of discussion around racism becoming more subtle. It wasn't new, but we talked about it. And so we varied the blatant versus subtle nature of the racism. We also borrowed some language from Rodney Clark's work on intragroup racism and varied the race of the perpetrator. So sometimes the officer was black, sometimes it was white. In a subtle instance or the subtle condition, I won't read the entire script here, but we had a scenario where an individual standing in line, their next in line to receive service and the cashier calls the next person in line, things of that nature. So something a little more subtle, where race was not invoked as directly as in the racial epithet scenario. What participants would do is they would come into the lab and we would outfit them with electrodes. My training at Howard was particularly in the area of cardiovascular psychophysiology. And this was exciting because when I looked at the racial health disparities literature, a lot of it was talking about poor disease outcomes in terms of cardiovascular disease related diseases. And so I thought, wow, if I want to study psychophys, this is what I want to look at, cardiovascular psychophys. So the participant would sit quietly for one minute, 60 seconds, and then listen to the scenario like the one I've just read. After hearing the scenario, the participant would be asked to imagine the scene, to concentrate on imagining the scene for 60 seconds. And then the participant would be asked to stop imagining the scene, open your eyes and concentrate on relaxing. And they would sit for another 60 seconds before they would move on to the next thing. And we measured in addition to their physiological responses, their affective emotional responses. We assessed their mood after each scenario. They listened to six of these, so on and so forth. So that was the design. As I mentioned, the design was not completely new. A visual imagery had been used before. But the innovation here was that we were not using self-report measures. We were also using cardiovascular psychophys measures that had not previously been used before. So the field had focused primarily on heart rate. It had focused on blood pressure. One of the things we know about those measures is that you cannot isolate the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems, which were some of the very systems that were implicated in understanding how racism leads to cardiovascular problems. And so this was an opportunity to see would we really see specific impact on the sympathetic nervous system, flight or fight, so on and so forth. The other innovation here was that we were measuring racial identity, we were measuring racial socialization, and a number of cultural resilience factors. One of the things I've been interested in in my work is not just the relationship between racism and hell. I think we have a pretty good idea of what the news is there. But are there cultural resilience factors that might allow youth to sort of be more resilient in the context of racism? And can we incorporate these resilience factors into the interventions at multiple levels? Okay. So that was what the added piece was with the work that we did. Okay. Cleo has asked us not to spend a lot of time talking about finding. So I'm just going to highlight one finding that I've been grappling with in the work that we've done at Carolina. So as I mentioned, a lot of the visual imagery paradigm work at Howard was more about figuring out how you set this up and designing the scenarios. It wasn't until Carolina that I set up my lab and really got some of this other work going. And here's the interesting finding. So racial identity, I've got to stay by the mic, protective factor in the context of mental health outcomes. When we use this paradigm, what we saw is that when we looked at emotional and affective responses, it was the individuals who said being black is really important to who I am, who reported more anger, they reported more distress when they filled out a measure shortly after completing imagining this scenario. This is not what I expected. We expected that if racial centrality is protective, that they would be less bothered by these events. But that's not what was happening. They were reporting higher levels of disgust and really across the board, negative affect. So that's what this shows here. I'm not going to focus on details. In the psychophysiological realm, what was interesting is that when we isolated the sympathetic nervous system, the flight or fight response, and it takes a while before you get there, if you know, psychophysiologists sort of talk about the parasympathetic, usually when stress occurs, the parasympathetic nervous system orients and tries to figure out what's going on. Before you see sympathetic activation, or when you see sympathetic activation, it means that the body's really saying there's trouble here. And what we found was that individuals who were more racentral who said being black is important to who I am, they were the ones, they're on the right in both of these. When they imagined scenes with the white actors, it didn't matter if it was subtle, if it were blatant, if it were just a control condition where we said there's some white folks in the area, the people who had higher racial centrality showed an exhibited sympathetic nervous system response. Okay, so this was again interesting. When we looked at sort of the emotional responses, they're reporting more negative effect. One of the beauties of the physiology is that you can't control that, well, you know, there are ways to move towards controlling it, but you know, it's less subject to control. We saw elevated sympathetic nervous system responses. Okay, one finding which I won't detail here because it didn't come out of this paradigm. Over the last several years, we've been collecting longitudinal data in North Carolina. And what we find is that in young adults, individuals who have higher levels of centrality, higher levels of private regard, over time, racial discrimination experiences are associated with higher levels of anxiety, higher levels of psychological distress, so on and so forth. Okay, this body of work has really kind of rocked my world a little bit because as a graduate student, racial identity was a protective factor. It was supposed to buffer the effects of racism. And now we began to add a little bit more complexity to it. So folks reporting feeling more distressed and angry, could it be that that served a protective function? Could it also be that, you know, there were reasons maybe the context mattered in terms of a lot of stuff going on in North Carolina, in terms of why folks who are more race central might be reporting increased psychological distress. So in terms of some of the future directions that we're thinking about in this work, really trying to unpack the mechanisms. One of the things that's striking to me in rereading and reading this literature is that there are so many different mechanisms by which racism might impact health. We heard about some of them earlier today. Some of them have been tested, some not, but really, I'm really interested in kind of underscoring what's going on. And that's because if you want to dismantle racism, you have to understand how it works. And so if we have empirical evidence about the mechanisms, I think that serves that cause. If you want to design interventions as I do, and culturally informed interventions that inform some of these race socialization and identity pieces, you've got to understand the mechanisms by which that works. And so that's some of the work that we've been doing as well. Time is short here. So I'll just comment quickly. Some additional innovation that's come from some of my former students and current students is looking at vicarious racism. What is the impact of exposure to seeing over and over shootings? So the constant media attention online or through whatever medium, and thinking about how that may play a role. And my students said, we like your, you know, your visual imagery paradigm is nice. But Dr. Nebler, we really need to actually have live experiences of racism in the lab. And so this is a paradigm here where we use confederate social psychology paradigm, and actually have someone bump the white confederate on his way out. The black confederate does this. The participant who's African American is sitting in the back. The white confederate whips out his phone and makes a number of derogatory comments about the black individual who just bumped them. Okay. Another example of innovation. We have a Lori Hager. She's now at Rutgers University, who looks at whether people eat cookies in the lab. So there are lots of chips of hoys in the lab, or there used to be. And she would look at when people were accused of stealing an iPad, whether they would eat more cookies, and whether eating sugary things might play a role in health outcomes. So this gives you an idea of some of the things that have come from the body of work. Okay. I am over time. So if you want to hear about this image here, feel free to ask about it. Okay. And then this is my last image here. We are doing many interesting things in the world of innovation. So we're using photo voice, experimental psychophysiology, we use CBPR in our methods. But one of the exciting things about being a Michigan product is just the students I've been able to train who are, you know, law school students, faculty now postdocs and who are doing some of this innovative research. I am extremely grateful to Michigan for equipping me with the skills to do good work. But also for the people that I had the opportunity to work with here who pushed me to be excellent, who believed in me, and who just helped me, people like Rob Sellers to train students and give back. So as I close, I just want to extend my thanks to my alma mater University of Michigan for allowing me to be in a community of scholars that has really pushed my work forward and has really surrounded me with lifelong family and friends who are truly leaders and best. Thank you very much. Is my mic on? Am I good here? Little closer? Okay, thanks. Welcome, everybody. I also want to extend my gratitude to Cleo and to the others who invited me to participate in this conference. I feel really fortunate to be able to share some of the work that we've been doing, and to talk about community based participatory research, which is my innovative methodology that I'm going to be talking about. I am, I think the token sociologist up here. And I and when I was a student in sociology, one of the things that I became very interested in was the social construction of knowledge and how we go about as human beings, as individuals and as societies, thinking about how do we produce knowledge. And as part of that, I was interested in inequalities in who has access to or the opportunities to engage in the production of knowledge. And that led me down a path to really thinking about how do we collectively engage who has voice, who has opportunities, and whose knowledge does get produced and gets out there. That really led me to thinking about community based participatory research, which is an approach to research. It's not really a methodology. It's an approach to doing research that focuses on how do we engage multiple perspectives, multiple voices, including those who often don't have opportunities to engage in the social production of knowledge. I'm starting my talk with a picture. Some of you may recognize this. This is the Ambassador Bridge, which is the busiest border crossing between the US and Canada. This bridge goes between Detroit and Windsor, and carries about 15,000 diesel trucks on it across it every day. I'm going to come back to this image in a little bit, but first I'm going to take us to another another river and another border. This is the border also on the border between the United States and Canada. This is the St. Lawrence River Valley. It travels between upstate New York and Ontario. It's an area that has a rich history of used by indigenous people in North America, going back about 9,000 years. It's an area with abundant plant, wildlife, fish, very fertile soils, so it's a very good area for gardening. It contributed to settlements with extensive gardens and trade networks that reached far north, far south, as far west as the western shore of Lake Superior for centuries. Beginning about in the mid 1700s, thereabouts, the community that now is known as the Mohawk community came and settled in this area in an area called the Aquasasney community along the St. Lawrence River Valley, and they continue to live there to this day. Oops, what did I do? There. This map shows the St. Lawrence River, St. Lawrence Seaway, and the area that shows in pink on this map is now what's called the Aquasasney Nation or the Mohawk Nation. It's a tribal community located between its lands and spans the U.S. and Canada. Beginning in the 1950s, inexpensive hydroelectric power generated by the St. Lawrence River attracted a number of industries to the area upstream of the Aquasasney Nation. You can see some of those shown in this map. I hope you can see these. The General Motors powertrain division is located immediately adjacent to the Aquasasney Nation, and it is downstream, downwind, and downgradient, so everything's traveling towards the Mohawk community from the RJ Reynolds Metals and the Aluminum Company of America or Alcoa, all of which are super fund sites currently. Toxicants from these sites have contaminated the soil, the air, and the water of the Aquasasney Nation to the extent that public health professionals have issued advisories saying that no women of childbearing age should eat any fish that are caught from the St. Lawrence River, nor should infants or young children. The tribal community has pretty much, they've internalized those messages. They have pretty much complied with those messages to a very strong extent. This is good news in the public health community where our mantra often is no exposure, no adverse effects. People are not ingesting these toxic chemicals, and therefore there is no adverse effect. However, I want to read an excerpt from a very beautiful paper that was written a number of years ago by Mary Arquette, who is a public health professional and an enrolled member of the Aquasasney Nation. She and her colleagues point out that in Aquasasney, as in many other communities, potentially serious adverse health effects can result when people stop traditional cultural practices in order to protect their health from the effects of toxic substances. When traditional foods such as fish are no longer eaten, alternative diets are often consumed, which are often high in fat and calories and low in vitamins and nutrients. This type of dietary change has been linked with many health outcomes, such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, cancer, and obesity. Consequently, serious health problems can result as when, as in the case of Aquasasney, traditional foods are no longer consumed, even if there is no little or no exposure to toxic substances. So here we have an alternative perspective, an alternative way of thinking about the shift in the diet that may have protected people from toxic exposures, but may have opened the door to other health issues. Furthermore, many of you may be familiar with the history of the Indian boarding schools in which young people from tribal communities were brought to boarding schools and kept there often many times for years with the goal of complete assimilation away from tribal communities and into white communities. This is a photo, these types of before and after photos are very common from the boarding school era. They clearly symbolize something very important to the boarding school and the white communities that funded these. And this young man, it was Navajo, not Aquasasney, but this is a picture of his before and after coming to the Carlisle Indian School. Within this historical context, a recommendation to stop traditional hunting and gathering practices which are deeply embedded with cultural, spiritual, and social significance within tribal communities can also be experienced as a continuation of assimilation or what's often called an indigenous community's cultural genocide. Thus, our scientifically informed advisories and actions grounded in the best of our western science and often usually the best of intentions to protect people from exposures to toxins can have unintended consequences that can lead them to be in the best case scenario less effective than they might be. And in the worst case scenario to actually harm communities often in unintended ways and Tuskegee is probably the most notorious example of this. So community based participatory research is an approach to conducting research that emerged out of this understanding that when we create knowledge in in academic communities we often may be creating a knowledge that's partial, that's incomplete, and that does not take advantage of the rich resources and knowledge and experiences of communities who are do not have opportunities to sit in these places that we get to sit in every day and think and create knowledge. It recognizes that both researchers and community members stand to make critical contributions to an understanding of complex phenomenon and that working by working together in an equitable manner that recognizes and values contributions from multiple perspectives and lived experiences we can create a more complete and nuanced understanding of a given phenomenon and can position ourselves with the potential to create more complete solutions to those issues. So now we're back to our bridge over over the Detroit River. I want to share very quickly an example from a community based participatory research effort in which I've had the privilege to have worked over the last several years. This is called community action to promote healthy environments or CAFE. CAFE has two main overarching goals and these came from were named by residents of Detroit who have been grappling with these issues for a very long time. Our goals are to develop a multi-level integrated and scientifically informed, sounds cool doesn't it, public health action plan to reduce the adverse effects of air pollution on the health of Detroit residents and to promote the implementation of that plan. CAFE is made up of a number of community based organizations and academic researchers based at the School of Public Health. Very briefly historically Detroit has faced challenges, multiple challenges with air quality. There are multiple pollutant sources from the history of the industrial history of the area as well as the contemporary bridge which brings in volumes of traffic, diesel traffic which is particularly harmful to health into heavily populated areas. So there are large exposed populations within the city of Detroit. There are disproportionate levels of adverse health outcomes including to name a few excess risk of asthma, cardiovascular disease and adverse birth outcomes all of which are linked to air pollutants. Because of the proximity of manufacturing to neighborhoods in Detroit there are large numbers of residents of vulnerable communities that are disproportionately exposed and affected. This shows a playground this photo shows a playground that is in the people's it's adjacent to people's community services which is a community organization in Detroit and right behind it. You can see the water treatment facility in Detroit. You can get a sense of how proximate how close some of these manufacturing sources are to where children are playing and the kinds of exposures that might come from that. So our goal was to bring scientific evidence to bear to create a set of recommendations to reduce some of these exposures and to try to get some of that work done. One of the things that we did as part of this process was to map where there are high levels of exposure. This map shows with the levels of diesel pollutants in the in the Tri-County area. So Oakland, Wayne, and Macomb County. And what this shows the yellow areas are the areas with the lowest level of exposure and increasingly dark red areas with the highest level of exposures in the in the red areas. The next slide I'm going to show you shows how this maps onto community characteristics. So here what we're seeing is communities census tracts rank ordered by the levels of poverty, the proportion of people of color, the proportion of children under the age of five who are particularly vulnerable to adverse effects of air pollutants and the proportion people over 60 who again are particularly vulnerable. And you can see that there's a fair amount of inequality in the distributed in the distribution of risk with communities that are more vulnerable being more highly exposed. We also quantified some of the adverse health effects. This slide shows the number of deaths, the number of hospitalizations, the number of missed school and workdays that are attributable to air pollutants and tries to put a number on the annual cost associated with air pollution in the in the Tri-County area. Based on this we came up with a set of recommendations. Here are strategies we can use to reduce air pollution. We also looked at where we're going to have the biggest impact on the most vulnerable populations and incorporated that into our recommendations. We took the recommendations to the community, talked to community residents about them, included, engaged them in a conversation about them and they their recommendations and ideas were included in our final set and in our final public health action plan. You guys can ask me about this one during the break. It's one of the very nice things that's happened as a result of the work. I want to speak just really quickly before I close about community engaged research and its relevance to some of our core values here at the University of Michigan. First it's an approach to conducting research which of course we value very highly at this institution. It actively engages multiple perspectives insights and knowledge in a process that stands to contribute to create a more robust and complete understanding of a given phenomenon by bringing those very rich and varied insights to understanding it. Second it offers opportunities to build relationships with communities who we care deeply about here at the University of Michigan. I work with community partners with whom I have worked at this point for almost 20 years and together we have opportunities to create knowledge that we might not otherwise be able to. I also want to just point out that CBPR is consistent with the University's deep commitment to diversity and equity in our work. The engagement of multiple perspectives, multiple insights, multiple epistemologies and multiple lived experiences in the process of co-creating knowledge is something that is central to our mission as a University and it pushes us to think a little bit harder about the I in our DEI initiatives. We often talk about diversity equity and inclusion but it seems to me that if we truly want to achieve diversity and equity in this institution we need to push beyond inclusion and really think about institutional transformation in a manner that can effectively engage the multiplicity of knowledges and epistemologies that are out there that can help us really build a robust body of knowledge. And I am also over time, I apologize Cleo, I want to thank everybody again for hanging in there to the last session of the day. I want to thank the organizers and most especially I want to thank my colleagues in Detroit and here at the University of Michigan who have made this work possible. And this is how we change them, okay. Okay, good afternoon everyone. And everybody gets a gold star for staying through the very end. I'm not saying bitter end, the wonderful glorious end. I want to thank Cleo of course and certainly I want to thank the organizers of this incredibly enriching gathering Susan Collins and David Lamb. I am truly honored to be here when I entered and I don't know if I'm close enough, okay. When I entered the University of Michigan as a graduate student in the early 1970s, okay I admit it, the discipline of psychology and the social sciences more generally were in a very different kind of place and a challenging place particularly with respect to the study of populations of color. And of others here of these last couple days have also noted we've come a long way. My entry actually coincided with the hiring of the first ever African American psychology professor and James Jackson who like the black students of that period had spent many of his formative years immersed in the civil rights movement. Indeed I had the privilege of participating in a real celebration of Jackson's transformative contributions marked of course by his receipt of the University of Michigan's Distinguished Diversity Scholar Career Award which from now on it's going to carry his name. In fact I stood in this very place last week also the very last person on that symposium so I guess that's my job from now on. The dismal state of psychology in the 1970s I think was well captured by Bob Guthrie's brilliantly titled work Even the Rat Was White which also referred to the fact that they were using white rats in experiments but also middle class and upper middle class white sophomores to do the basic experiments in psychology and unfortunately the people doing the research are also pretty homogenous. So in many studies at that time African Americans in particular but certainly also other ethnic and racial groups were often compared unfavorably with whites with differences typically explained by some version of of deficit modeling but what soon followed right here at the University of Michigan in the Institute for Social Research was what I conceive of as a revolution, a revolution of thought, a revolution of contact, of conduct that really has what I view as a profound impact on a study of populations of color today and the way we carry out survey research today. It's also created a large and truly engaged cadre of social scientists that I firmly believe would never have existed without the program that I'm going to describe. Now is this the one? What do I use? Yeah, there we go. So I'm talking about the survey of African Americans, of black Americans as it was called then that was conducted between 1978 and 1980 and I'm going to talk about how that one research project launched a revolutionary transformation of social science research addressing ethnic populations in the the scientific workforce. So I'm going to take you through a historical journey, a hope, a brief one and I have to call it a love letter really to the people I worked with, the people who have become my lifelong friends that outlines the impact of that one study. And in David's terms, it is good news. It's it's all good news. That journey began for me with my fortuitous enrollment in the University of Michigan and subsequent encounters I had with James Jackson, Pat and Jerry Gurin, Libby DuVan, Frank Yates and a set of truly exceptional fellow students, some are here today, who became lifelong collaborators collaborators and best friends, including Phil Bowman, Woody Neighbors, Linda Chatters, Robert Taylor, Shirley Hatchett, Letha Chedilla. So the civil rights movement, as I mentioned before, really was a prologue for what happened when James was hired in psychology. He was a young man in his mere twenties and most of us were barely out of adolescence. But revolutionary further was high then. Most of us had engaged in various forms of social protests during those years, during our college years. We were quite accustomed to pointing out injustices, to pointing out biases, prejudices, racism, injustices. And James had been struck by the impact of one very classic study, Americans with either mental health, which had told us a lot about factors affecting well-being in the general population. Jerry Gurran had actually been one of the co-PIs on that project. So James approached Jerry about doing the same thing for black people with a nationally represented, serve representative, I'm sorry, a nationally representative sample of African Americans. And although I was just a freshly minted doctorate myself, a PhD in social psychology, in psychology, they asked me to be a co-PI on that initial grant, which was actually funded eventually by the National Institute of Mental Health. Now what is revolution? One definition is that it's a sudden vast change in a situation, a discipline, or the way of thinking or behaving. And I think that's really what happened at that point in time. So what was so revolutionary about this one study? Certainly it's focused on African Americans in and of themselves. And it's probably going to be difficult for many of you in this audience to believe, but at that time, you could not do a project on a survey, certainly, on African Americans without what they call a white control group. And I can remember well when James was presenting to the scientists at ISR in a big forum on the sixth floor, what his ideas were, they pushed back. I said, how on earth can you do a study without a white control group? The implication for us was that black people and Latinos and Asians and Native Americans and so on only mattered in relationship to whites. So the study broke a fundamental convention in social sciences research. It's also the first national representative probability sample of African Americans. We were proposing to do something that had never been done. We were seeking information on all kinds of African Americans in the United States living in every kind of circumstance. And in so doing, we were declaring that African Americans really weren't this single monolithic group that was implied in many of the studies that have been done in the day. They could be urban or rural. They could be richer poor. They could live in Iowa or Georgia in black or white neighborhoods and so on. So this rich tapestry was in fact the black experience which had not really been recognized until that point. The study was fundamentally multi and interdisciplinary. That is, it was based on the assumption that was rare at that time that no single disciplinary lens was sufficient to understand mental health or even human behavior more generally. So this project that was led by a social psychologist also incorporated many other areas of psychology including developmental and personality but also economists, sociologists, political scientists, psychiatrists and other physicians, anthropologists, political scientists and public health specialists, anybody who could inform our models and notwithstanding Michigan's eventual embrace of interdisciplinarity, it really was pretty rare at that point in time. We also challenged what at the time was the methodological orthodoxy we deviated from standard operating procedure in a number of ways in order to minimize the impact of race on the interview itself but also to interrogate the meaningfulness of the constructs that we were using. We really could not be sure that any other standard measures that were typically used in social surveys were relevant for the African-American populations that we were examining. So in addition to using only African-American interviewers from the geographic regions where people came from so you didn't have somebody in the South being interviewed by somebody with a Northern accent. We employed several other very specific strategies and I'm actually not going to describe those in detail because I'm running out of time but that included interview of respondent matching obviously but something called a random probe that Howard Shuman who had been a legendary ISR scientist that come up with a technique to develop the respondent shared understanding of a construct back translation a linguistic tool that we used to figure out whether or not the respondent truly understood what we were asking converging operations using several different methods to understand the meaning of a construct. Now I'm going to describe in a bit more one final methodological strategy that had more to do with efficiency and cost effectiveness and some of you already know about this but it was critical in terms of ensuring a truly representative national sample which I must emphasize again had not been done before so James Jackson had a dream one night and those of you who know this story know it well and it concerned our sampling strategy how do we get that rare sample of blacks the people who live in white neighborhoods typically when a study oversampled blacks they get blacks who lived in black neighborhoods because that was easy and that was cheap so James suddenly realized that if you just went to these white neighborhoods and asked where the black people lived you could probably find out with a fair degree of certainty where they were and in fact this was proven to be the case all you had to do was go to those neighborhoods and they point out where the black people lived it turned out to be a full pooth math and he named it the wide area sampling procedure WASP it's now used internationally actually to screen for rare samples of all sorts finally and this is the most important point I think especially in terms of of the meeting we're having today that this program really was a vehicle for generating a new cadre social scientist so just as critical and innovative as our methodological advances were was the stated goal of using a survey as a vehicle to train ethnic minority students and postdoctoral scholars in the fine art of survey research as had been rebranded by this project graduate students were involved in absolutely every part of that project including proposal writing research design questionnaire development sampling interviewer training coding data analysis write up eventually training programs became an integral part of that program and it's a measure of that and it is on this measure I think that the program was successful beyond anyone's wildest dreams and I have to remind people we did this before the internet before computers so we'd stay all all night typing drafts I know few of you can even imagine this so the NSBA actually inspired a host of other studies the NSBA itself became a panel study with re-interviews at 8, 9 and 12 years creating not just the first national and representative survey of black Americans but also the only four wave study the national Chicano survey oh I forgot the national election studies of course that had been done the Chicano national survey done by Carlos Arce and Pat Gurin also inspired the the national Chicano research network the national black election study which I just mentioned Boyd by the success of the NSBA of course and inspired by Jesse Jackson's run for presidency four panels of that study were also done and of course the national survey of American life which many of you know about but also added an adolescent sample and for the first time allowed researchers to tease out the impact of race and ethnicity by incorporating a Caribbean ancestry study as well as another white study now importantly a parallel study was also launched by my good friends Maggie Allegria and David Chakauchi and this study allowed for the first time the same kind of investigation to take place within Asian American populations and in Latino populations but it doesn't stop just there because it also infuses some of our training activities the family research consortium was a five-year a repeated five-year training project that brought family researchers together every summer for an institute we'd have a hundred or 200 people and it also had a post-doctoral program David Chakauchi again these names keep coming back I wish I could do a network analysis of everybody who had been associated with this project but David Chakauchi and Andrew Fellini were my co-principal investigators on that project we brought together people who were already professionals faculty members researchers physicians who wanted to learn more about survey research and we trained them in the use of these data samples we heard yesterday about Tom Avises Hopkins Center for Health Disparities also based on this model so the impact of this project is has been huge and ongoing many hundreds of graduate students and post-docs trained directly by the PRBA faculty of course universities and colleges throughout the world employ faculty influenced by this program thousands more are indirectly influenced by the program through second generation scholars I doubt there's been a more impactful research program conducted in social sciences at the University of Michigan in terms of transforming the workforce as well as how we conduct social science research so I thank you and I thank everybody here for Michigan for my career for providing me a set of colleagues and collaborators that have lasted in fact my entire life I'm going to be retiring next year but I'm proud to say that I have remained close to this this family of researchers for my entire career and I enjoy coming back every few years when they ask me every week it seems so thank you so much wonderful may I ask all the speakers to come forward please our intent was to really have a wide variety of methodological approaches that people have used to do their work not have the same theme but rather to really expose you to the different types of things that people have been doing that have definitely represent this idea of innovation so we want to open up the audience now any questions that you might have for any of our speakers yes do we have our mics about ah that is so thank you for your presentations I really appreciate the insight and your shared experiences and for coming back home one question I had for you Dr. Nelbot am I pronouncing it correctly for your audio or for your narratives that you had your participants participants listen to I was curious if you chose to do audio recordings versus them being read out loud and also I was curious about the authenticity of the scripts themselves if they were based off of actual lived experiences or more of a if they were more creative based on ideas of certain lived experiences how did you come up with those scripts and how were they evaluated how did you select what those scripts how did they read can folks hear me okay I think the mic is on thank you for your question so the recordings were actually audio recordings that's a fairly straightforward answer in terms of the development of the scripts we consulted prior work that had used similar scenarios so some of the work done by Dr. Harrell as well as work done in other areas that's not race based so Scott Vrana's work at VCU and then the piece that I think you're alluding to was you know our lab sort of looked at the scenarios and thought about kind of ecological validity and put all that together to come up with the scenarios questions fired but I'm going to ask you to go back to his closing statement where he talked about the relationship between the work that he's doing because again he's dealing with culture and he's dealing with the brain and he's taking a very innovative approach but you also talk about a connection with discrimination could you say a little bit more about that is your mic on yeah okay that's a truly interesting question and we have not done any I'll say but in this context but we have used survey research with biomarkers to investigate some potential influences of social status and so let me share one little finding we are getting so if you what we are getting is that correlate of status appears to be very different depending on status is assessed in terms of objective markers in this case say educational attainment and occupational prestige just as higher status is good for your health for example cytokines inflammation and cardiovascular problems and stuff like this and if status is low you know if you are if your life is miserable it's hard fine however we are finding one interesting thing which is that subjective status sometimes has very mysterious effects and subjective status is extremely good for white american men however higher subjective status appears to have some cost as well because maybe you may be beaten up because you are presenting yourself as higher than you are supposed to be you are deviating from where you are supposed to be for example and that kind of effect we are finding among american women white women in this case and we haven't really looked into black people african-americans but probably something interesting to look into and especially among japanese men higher status appears to be very damaging I mean again it's very hard to draw any causal except in this case inflammation or cardiovascular problems may not necessarily increase your subjective status up or down so I'd imagine that one interpretation is that in japanese context anyway higher status subjective status seem to be inviting more stress so this is just by way of illustrating this future possibility that the status component that the hierarchical aspects of culture or society may have very nuanced effect depending on which segment of the society or general culture there might be so thank you any other questions at this point so I'll continue on my list oh see he wanted to stop me okay nope there we go it was it was an extraordinary panel and I I'd love to hear your dreams for social sciences and innovation and research methods for the next 15 years so what would what would Michigan 2030 look like in the context of social science whether it be through ISR or through our own home institutions well starting first here since I'm closest to you I'd actually like to see us figure out a way to influence policy I mean I think we have a lot of information but we don't seem to have a strategy for using that information to change the lives of people I mean we have some clues and we have some small projects but I mean I think that's been kind of the underlying theme of this gathering you know how can we use this information more effectively so I'd like to see you know the people who come after us because you know I'm ending my career figure out how how best to do that and we've had clues you know about how you deliver the message in ways not to say it in ways you know you should say it just to speak to those with the resources and the power to make a change but I don't think we've done enough in that area I'm not sure of my answer yet but were you thinking about in terms of innovation in methodology or just more broader than method okay can I yeah yeah well I think you know some of the comments came out especially from Linda from you it is true it used to be the case that you needed a white control group in you know examining African Americans in your case in my case I used to receive reviews from you know in general hey what does this mean you really need a white difference group right to make any sense out of this and well there's some point a comparison can provide some some you know anchor in interpretation but we have come a long way now social and behavioral scientists now seem to share this assumption that humans are very much dependent on social context and from yeah I think no question asked about this point in a way that's very different from 30 years ago you know humans are conceptualized autonomous being that is very well packaged in a scalp or a body and once you peel clothes and skin everything identical so that's the point of studying culture or race if you well actually I was told if you have any talent in psychology well why do you study anything like culture so you change that's great however if you go to natural biological science department that's not necessarily the case and you know one thing I heard from your talk and you know that's something I try to express which is that well surely humans are biological entity but humans are designed to be you know kind of functional after engaging in social cultural environment and I think I'd like to see David take initiative in basically educating the rest of the people especially in biological science field the neuroscience genetics included just you know this convey fundamental what I see as a fundamental realization or finding from social sciences in the last half decade no half century that's a tough question Jose but I think one of my hopes for this institution moving forward would be that we can continue to be self-reflexive about the ways that we go about the process of constructing knowledge and in particular about the ways that we can have blinders on just in the ways that when we when all the researchers were white there were blinders and there was embedded racism and the ways that people conducted their research and opening the institution to different lived experiences different perspectives different knowledges challenged that and moved us forward in the ways that we construct our knowledge I would hope that we could continue down that path and really think about the diversity and the multiple ways of knowing the multiple epistemologies that are out there I do feel like as that institutions of higher education can become very closed off and sort of focused in on positivist science and I think we risk there's a great risk in that process of closing ourselves off to other ways of knowing things that can really enrich our ways of understanding the world and that those are deeply embedded with inequalities the theme of this panel in terms of what kinds of knowledge whose voices are valued whose perspectives and lived experiences are considered legitimate knowledge and I think that if we can continue to push that envelope we will only end up with a richer science and a richer understanding of the world and I think it will push us towards I hope greater equity I'll just comment briefly I think my colleagues have given great answers on this one thing I've been thinking about is you know we do better in terms of the range of populations that we study now so it's not just black or white but there still are many groups for which we don't know a lot about and the the population dynamics that are changing thinking about the multiracial population there's there's still groups that we still just are still in the infancy and so I'm hoping that you know 2030 whenever we're talking about the science is really reflective of the rapidly changing demographics and different groups that we're seeing come onto the floor I have sort of two interrelated questions but the first is for Enrique and there's an article by an author and psychology named Lillenfeld that I assume that you might be aware of based upon your research and where he sort of criticizes research on microaggressions it's essentially is not having an empirical or theoretical base if I'm correct in that argument and and I have some observations about the article but first could you give me some observations and you know from a psychological perspective and then I can go on to my second question after that I think my general reaction to let's see how I can answer this diplomatically knowing that you're being recorded what I will say is that Rob Solars and I were talking about this work the other night I think there's a I don't maybe it's not a hidden agenda in terms of the reactions to the microaggressions literature I do think and I don't know if this will surprise you that we have work to do in the field of microaggressions I think some of the criticisms are important and we need to understand them and that there is room for improvement in terms of the work we do so I don't think we should just take all of the critique and and kind of throw it out I actually do think some of the points made could be considered valid some I certainly do not but I think my gut reaction to it is that there's some other things operating in terms of the lens and the selection of the data that's presented to make arguments about the strength or weaknesses of the field that need to be addressed I'll just leave it at that so that relates to my second question because the the main problem I had with the argument or his argument was that he essentially said there's no real research been done in that area however it was very clear that he had not read any of the sociological any of the epidemiological any of the social work I can go on he didn't say David Williams he said and let's get this straight there's been research and sociology and epidemiology and public health for 20 years in this area okay that none of that was cited and so to say there's no empirical base is clearly flawed but this gets to my second point so the second point is that what I see in psychology and especially sociology is that these are very as the years have gone by very siloed disciplines and so you see in that article a person who did not read outside of the field of psychology did not cite anybody outside of the field of psychology and what you see with the program for research on black Americans we're very interdisciplinary but none of us are working in a sociology or psychology department all of us blend this in psychiatry Cleo's in in public health I'm in social work and though we're all trained in the disciplines I don't think that's an accident David Williams is in Afro-American studies in public health I don't think that's an accident I think that as the disciplines become more siloed that instead of embracing team science they're going more and more away from team science so that's my bigger observation and sort of to the question that Jose asked in terms of the future whereas some fields tend to be going more towards the future of team science other fields especially sociology where I'm trained it seems to be more and more siloed so again just some general observations from the panel about that very brief because our time is really up well we were actually discussing some of this at lunch today right that that's very question and I said that UCLA seems extremely siloed to me Michigan has made strides that most of the universities I suspect they have not made but you point out that even here there are other kinds of silos I guess I'm a sociologist who also ran to public health too which is a very multidisciplinary interdisciplinary field so you know to the extent that that is happening I think it's I think it's a real challenge for us I mean and I worry that even within the institution when we talk interdisciplinarily we still need to push against those silos and be engaging I think a more engaged scholarship with people outside of academia is also really critical for us politicians and others I'm really grappling with this right now I've been in psychology for about 10 years now and because of the things I study it's increasingly clear to me that psychologists are missing you know don't have all the answers what's interesting to me is that a lot of programs think they're becoming more interdisciplinary and you're seeing a cropping up of all these oh well you have an opportunity to work with this and this but I think we still have a long way to go to actually get there and I think there is inter institutional variability so I trained here at Michigan unfortunately for whatever reasons I never had the opportunity to interface with PRBA and so my training was I worked with Rob as a psychologist and as I've gone out into the world and tried to figure out how do I study these complex topics I've had to kind of reach out and find other people so I think how do we take what Michigan and PRBA and has done here and kind of disseminate so that other folks are able to use the same model I think would be beneficial I watch this very quickly I I was a I thought Michigan was great now if this university has a real problem like this it would be a real problem and I think at the same time well in my case I would not be able to do neuroscience extension of my early work if I had been in other institutions I'm very sure maybe UCLA could be a potential exception but this university is very open in many ways but even then you know kind of problem is happening I'm sure it's happening that's a problem but just on the other on the other side of the story is that if you are doing I'm a psychologist all the way through and if you want to persuade your psychology colleagues about the significance of race or significance of culture in my case you really have to be kind of narrow and go deep and try to figure out the kind of you know jargon they are using and it kind of the discourse structure is you know that define the field and so on and then you really have to sneak in and make some argument you know those things can matter so there's a very interesting task you know I think that's this really present real challenge to all of us that is you really have to go deep in the discipline while at the same time we need to bring in all the social cultural political social structural considerations which most of my colleagues are entirely ignorant or maybe they are not interested in at all so uphill battle in many ways but I think that's a very important question and for us grappling with issues of methodology it's a very important one because I do think disciplines matter I remember when I was in training I was told that it's your job to do the good science it's not your job to translate I'm in public health because I want to translate because people may not translate my work the way it should be translated and certainly there's opportunities for influences because I also wanted to work with communities in terms of understanding what it is that we were doing and whether or not it had any relevance at all to communities so I think this is a really important topic and it's not going to end here but I am thrilled that we have our scholars with us today that have taken many different approaches to methodological issues that are going to be top-notch so I want to thank the panel for being here today and I want to thank you for being here today as well one line that I took out of my talk was that people well thank you I'll just make a few final comments thanks to those of you who've stayed around and those who've been watching on the live stream I think I just wanted to Susan and I were talking before I just wanted to make a few comments thanking everybody and just saying you know this this turned out like amazingly like what we imagined two years ago and we started talking about and got this great committee together from across campus with Cleo and Liz Cole Jorge Delva who had to go across the hall to the Mishar meeting and Carlo Conner helped from education we had six units involved in the committee we thought as much as we've said how Michigan strengths and doing cooperation across campus and doing interdisciplinary interactions I think in fact we don't do things like this that much that have six units involved and in fact there's nine units represented among the the 30 alumni that presented in many disciplines and it's just been very gratifying and great I've had a blast the last two days and I've learned I've learned so much and it's really been a wonderful thing so I also just want to thank we had some amazing staff the other great thing it was a real collaboration especially between ISR and the Ford School where our our staffs really got together to to make it happen so Tara Ingholm had did an enormous amount worked with everybody who was coming Anna Massey who's from ISR helped a lot with the with the food and all those things we also had great cooperation from the Alumni Association with Shelly Conner and Catherine Carver and from the Ford School Emily Hickey and Laura Lee and many others were were involved and I just wanted to thank them it was a real a big big effort to put it all together and I think it was a huge success so thanks to all of you and hopefully we'll do this again in another hundred years