Spotlight: Critical Media Pedagogies Scholarly Interest Group Isra Ali (bio), Lauren S. Berliner (bio), Stephanie Brown (bio), Sarah Choi (bio), Tanya Goldman (bio), Nicky Hentrich (bio), Regina Yung Lee (bio), and Samantha N. Sheppard This round table discussion reflects the primary goals of the Critical Media Pedagogies Scholarly Interest Group (SIG), which is dedicated to critical conversations about media pedagogy and the exchange of teaching resources. Nicky Hentrich: Let’s start with our origin story and why we believe the SIG’s mission is crucial in this current moment in higher education. Lauren Berliner: My first SIG meeting was in 2013, in a basement room of the Society for Cinema and Media Studies (SCMS) conference hotel. Only a handful of people were in attendance. It felt like a confessional—we joked that we were the people who secretly cared about teaching, even as we worried that our attention to pedagogy might be seen as a distraction by our colleagues or possible future employers. In 2016, I became co-chair (with Leah Shafer), and we changed the name of the SIG from Media Literacy and Pedagogical Outreach to Critical [End Page 1] Media Pedagogies. We have since seen a steady stream of new members. Today, our SIG focuses on all the parts of our name. Critical media pedagogy is about collectively conceptualizing knowledge production in the field. Our SIG is a place to wrestle with the often difficult, intertwining problems of media texts, changing institutional landscapes, relations of power in and outside of academic institutions, and how power operates in our classrooms and in the materials we use. Tanya Goldman: We’re encouraged to be inventive in our research. Why shouldn’t we approach pedagogy with this same spirit of invention and rigor? Hentrich: Which leads to the question, What are the politics of teaching, and how does the SIG inflect those? Isra Ali: Academics are rarely encouraged to think about the politics of our teaching as much as we are about the politics of our research. Politics are still operational in teaching contexts, though—perhaps more than in research—because they are less acknowledged. Regina Yung Lee: Yes! Our political commitments are lived out in our classrooms, on our syllabi, in how we structure our shared spaces, and through our assignments and our assessment methods. These can be passive policies about correct language use or active politics like a syllabus centered on media production by and for women of color. In the media studies classroom—which prioritizes sensory reproduction, viral spread, and embodied transmission—the politics of teaching have particularly visceral impacts. Sarah Choi: This focus on impacts structures how the SIG centers graduate student interests and initiatives. Finding a community of inspiring role models is a luxury in any field, yet I found one here in our SIG. As a junior scholar who upholds relationality as the primary component of teaching, I’ve perhaps learned more about this craft through our candid conversations on pedagogies and the support and encouragement we give one another—even over email—than any texts on pedagogical theory. From the beginning, I felt welcomed to contribute to the group and bring graduate students’ concerns and interests to the table, which helped launch Exploring Anti-Racist Pedagogies, a workshop series devoted to fostering discussions on equitable teaching practices. Our inaugural event was held virtually on February 22, 2022, and featured three University of Washington faculty members, including SIG member Regina Y. Lee. Goldman: I joined the steering committee before I defended my dissertation and immediately felt I was among peers rather than more senior colleagues. We are a non-hierarchical group, but we are attuned to structural impediments to critical pedagogy, especially as many of us work in institutional contexts that continue to devalue pedagogical labor within film and media studies. [End Page 2] Ali: To clarify, there is a distinction between institutional devaluation of pedagogically focused faculty and our own understandings of the power, value, purpose, and advancement of the field. Lee: It’s a matter of transmuting institutional values into less alienating, more familiar terms. At my institution (as at many others around the United States), the majority of teaching is carried out...
Read full abstract