← Collection Page

Editorial

Creating Knowledge in Common

Shannon Criss, Kevin Hamilton, Mary Pat McGuire




Universities and communities are partnering together to more fully support needs across society. Art and design practices engaged within these partnerships substantively deepen the impact of this collective work through expression, visualization, representation, and exhibition, converging multiple viewpoints into broader re-imaginings and tangible new creations with both rational and emotional force. This special collection shares stories of such partnerships and their extraordinary outcomes in areas including community health, community arts, placekeeping, climate adaptation design, food production and distribution, abolition, student learning and engagement and more.



Introduction to the collection

This Ground Works special collection, Creating Knowledge in Common, presents ten stories of university-community partnership that address societal issues through co-creative inquiry. As editors, we define co-creative inquiry as collaborative knowledge-building that draws on a variety of tools to foster awareness, exchange, reflection, and creative visioning and making, through which we ask better questions and discover more meaningful and effective answers together. Within collaborative partnerships, the arts and design fields facilitate creative methods for shared expression and exploration, converging multiple viewpoints into broader re-imaginings that result in advocacy, activism, and action with both rational and emotional force.

We (Criss, Hamilton, and McGuire), currently academics working within land grant institutions, recognize the responsibility that universities bear to share resources and directly engage with publics to address needs across society in order to fulfill their institutional mission and educate their students as engaged citizens. In a reciprocal manner, public organizations and communities also seek collaboration with faculty and students to expand resources and organizational capacity, broaden advocacy, and create public programs and spaces that address needs at the community scale. Founding charters, laws, and policies guide public universities in this regard, with publics rightfully calling for accountability to such commitments. Ideally, knowledge drawn from diverse partners creates both common and uncommon grounds for advancing greater understanding and action on entrenched issues within both communities and institutions.

Having participated as well as supported colleagues in this work, we are motivated through the collection to highlight stories of immense commitment to partnered research while also acknowledging the challenges and suspicion that can accompany such endeavors. In the original call for this collection, we asked our submitters: What structures are needed to collectively and meaningfully build on diverse knowledge traditions from across academic and community practices? How do these efforts ensure that both processes of inquiry and the knowledge produced are of value to all parties? What new knowledge about collaboration do these efforts produce? How do arts-based approaches extend and enrich university-community collaborations? The articles in the collection present an array of responses to these prompts and speak to the need for continued support and expanded capacity for these partnerships.

Context of the collection

We three editors of this special collection, also members of the Ground Works Editorial and Advisory Boards, have been in conversation together about how our respective disciplines and institutions recognize the importance of publicly engaged scholarship. We proposed this themed issue to the Advisory Board, who affirmed the value of such a venture for our moment.

That affirmation speaks not only to the need to address the challenges that community-engaged scholarship poses to faculty advancement, but also to the renewed wave of reflection, investment, and policy change in higher education in 2020 following the social disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic and national calls to account for anti-Black racism. University administrations are looking to repair or strengthen past commitments to the publics they serve. Similarly, disciplinary organizations and journals are reflecting anew about how their criteria and language might disproportionately advantage white contributors, and many research communities have been coming to terms with how they exclude traditional, place-based, cultural forms of knowledge. Since Ground Works itself was originally created to fill a need for critical review and recognition of work in an underrecognized field—that of arts-integrative research-–the platform seemed an appropriate forum for arts-integrative work that faces an additional challenge to recognition because it is publicly-partnered.

Our application of a more capacious peer-review process joins other efforts within the academy to ensure inclusion of the broadest range of knowledge. For instance, a growing number of university promotion and tenure (P&T) review processes now review faculty research that explicitly values collaboration and knowledge generation practices represented in publicly-partnered research. (sidenote: See, for example: Guidance for Rewarding and Recognizing Community-Engaged Scholarship in the Arts, Research and Scholarship for Promotion, Tenure, and Reappointment in Schools of Architecture, and Assessing the Practices of Public Scholarhip. ) Essential to the evaluation of such cases is an expansion of criteria beyond the individual faculty member’s contribution to their professional field and academic discipline, to encompass demonstration of direct societal impact as a result of engagement. Such expanded processes typically invite community-based, non-academic constituents to evaluate the contribution of faculty member research to society.

It will take more than revisions to criteria for journal review, or attention to P&T processes, to accomplish the shifts needed for universities to truly benefit the communities their charters often call on them to serve. However, we hope that by including the arts and communities—both sources of knowledge excluded by traditional university structures—in one process and one collection, Creating Knowledge in Common can be a worthy contribution to the cause.

For that purpose, this collection extended the Ground Works review criteria not only to assess a project’s arts integration but also to discern the nature of a project’s university-community partnership. The criterion we added—“Is collaboration between academic and community-based partners integral to this project?”—surfaced meaningful conversations among the reviewers and editors and also invited deeper reflection among authors regarding the complexity of achieving such transformative work.

Entries in the collection

Within the collection, each entry narrates a unique story of community-university partnership, driven by its geographical context, partnership formation, creative research processes, duration of partnering and production, and challenges faced.

Importantly, the entries span diverse physical and cultural geographies and draw on knowledge of place in unique ways that underpin the issues engaged. For example, as described by Andrew Fox and Carla Delcambre in “Engagement, Education and Implementation: Supporting Community Driven Adaptations to Rising Waters in Princeville, North Carolina,” the Town of Princeville, the first established free Black town in the U.S., faced enormous rebuilding challenges in the wake of Hurricane Matthew in 2016. The community sought collaboration with North Carolina State University’s Coastal Dynamics Design Lab (CCDL) to create a resiliency plan founded on community “stay in place” commitments and knowledge of the land, combined with the regional planning and landscape architecture expertise of the CDDL. Other projects in the collection span the geographies of an urban neighborhood district threatened by gentrification in South Boston, Massachusetts; the carceral landscape of New Orleans, Louisiana; a creative, youth community in a low-income neighborhood in Toronto; an Indigenous floodplain community of the Peruvian Amazon; a refugee community in Syracuse, New York; a bottomland neighborhood in the Kaw Valley Watershed of Lawrence, Kansas; conflict-affected areas of Kosovo, Sri Lanka, and Western Sahara; and the virtual environments of the Adirondack Mountains of New York State. The range of cultural geographic contexts within each entry set the stage for a wide range of place-specific needs and motivations that drive partners finding each other.

The way these partnerships are formed and structured—whether initiated by the university or the community—informs the process and outcomes of the collaborative projects. One example is an innovative long-term formal program and agreement process for recurring music education in the neighborhood that encompasses both a community music school and York University in Toronto, co-created and developed by Amy Hillis, Richard Marsella, and Diane Kolin in “Mapping the Relationship Between a University and Community Music School.” Another example is a broad, complex coalition of scientists, visual artists, and activists working across two continents with three Indigenous communities in the floodplain of the Amazon, presented in “Tres Comunidades, Un Rio: Supporting Urban Amazonian Floodplain Communities Through Data and Art” by Leann Andrews, Alexandra Jhonston Vela, Xiomara Valdivia Zavaleta, Jorge A. Alarcón Piscoya, Gemina Garland-Lewis, Kathleen L. Wolf, Ursula Valdez, Susana Cubas Poclin, Christian Ampudia Gatty, Carlo Tapia del Águila, Rebecca Bachman, Christina Flores, and Clancy Wolf.

In every project, art-making and design are central to making ideas visible, audible, tangible, and emotionally resonant. This collection showcases a wide range of creative processes and artifacts that have helped to expand conversations within communities and to communicate beyond those directly involved in their creation. In “Apothecarts: Mobilizing Abolition” by Emilie Taylor Welty, Jackie Sumell and Jose Cotto, the presence of incarcerated individuals and their contributions through a medicinal garden is powerfully seen and felt through mobile, interactive education-carts. Observing the project’s evolution—from a collaborative prototype to a fully realized presence in New Orleans and then at international events—highlights the broad impact of this work. Similarly, projects like “Virtual Forests as a Creative Medium for Community Co-Creation and Collaboration” by Aidan Ackerman, Daphna Gadoth-Goodman, Emily Esch, Robert Malmscheimer, Timothy Volk, Sara Constantineau, and Lauren Cooper use visualization, sound, digital media, and immersive processes to engage a broad audience in environmental decision making, without which understanding and investment would not occur. In “Participatory Planning and Design Research for the ARTery” by Lily Song and Tania Fernandes Anderson, the asset map and artist-informed site design schemes were critical in organizing and communicating a variety of local business and art-incubator opportunities, which are now being leveraged for public dialog, policy support, and city financial commitments.

Creating participatory and co-creative work takes time. At the start of any project, time must be dedicated to listening to one another, ensuring that all essential voices are “at the table,” establishing genuine trust, building networks, strengthening capacities, securing funding, carrying out the work, and incorporating reflective processes—all processes crucial for healthy outcomes. However, challenges, detours, and unforeseen disruptions (like the 2020 pandemic) inevitably arise and impact intended timelines. Additionally, academic calendars can be restrictive, often requiring projects to extend across multiple semesters or even years to build the sustainable partnerships desired. For example, “New Americans’ Pavilion: A Space of Cosmopolitan Cooperation in Syracuse, New York” by David Shanks, recounts the development of a project that began as a seemingly straightforward community partner initiative but ultimately took four years to complete in a way that established the needed connections between university and community participants as well as the technical development required. Likewise, the elementary school design-build project described in “Engagement, Education, and Implementation…” is one in a series of projects in that team’s long-term resiliency plan for the Town of Princeville, North Carolina after the devastation of Hurricane Matthew.

Beyond surprising detours in time, community-university co-creative projects face additional challenges and detours including resource limitations, varying levels of institutional support, miscommunication, personality conflicts, burnout, and more. For instance, “Side by Side: Navigating the Messy Work of Staying Relational in University-Community Partnerships” by Ann Holt and Cindy Maguire focuses on building capacity for faculty and students to travel and work within three distinct, distressed international communities. This entry illustrates the adaptability necessary to manage the “messiness” of transnational, transdisciplinary collaboration, underscoring the resilience needed to work across cultures and borders. Meanwhile, “Prairie Block: Designing and Building Community Resilience in the Heartland” by Suzan Hampton and Keith Van de Riet, a local project in a small town, highlights the extensive network of community partners and institutional support required to make design-build projects possible. With limited financial resources, the project relies on in-kind contributions and local partnerships, navigating a winding path to address obstacles through trust and commitment from both community and professional alliances.

Navigating the collection

The Ground Works platform is dedicated to publishing work from diverse disciplines using rich media. By extension, this collection for university-community partnerships that center the arts and design foregrounds their social aims and relationships through media-rich stories. The people behind this collection’s entries—from within universities and within communities—are deeply engaged in traditions of craft, discipline, community, and ritual that specifically informed the very projects presented and thus the stories of process and creative making presented in each entry. Contributors draw on experience and knowledge at the top of their respective fields, and we are eager for readers to familiarize themselves with a breadth and depth of collaborative arts- and design-driven practices that advance partnered research.

As editors, we want to invite all readers in, pulling out common threads across these projects while also respecting the distinct knowledge traditions at their foundation. To this end, we created an indexing and navigation system that we hope will facilitate discovery, providing a means to draw comparisons across projects as well as to learn more about their respective traditions and forms.

A keyword-based taxonomy groups the projects according to their “forms and structures,” their “processes and practices,” and their “motivations and goals.” A “form and structure” keyword such as placemaking invites learning about the projects that cohere under it just as they would in a journal dedicated solely to placemaking work. But the same projects invite different scrutiny and appreciation as they cohere with other projects under a “motivations and goals” keyword such as power which identifies projects by a critical motive we discerned in the project’s leaders, or a “processes and practices” keyword such as scalability, which identifies a unique value for those looking to grow such community-based processes and practices. This edition’s index page also offers an introductory bibliography titled “To learn more” for those seeking further information and scholarship about the traditions and conversations associated with these projects.

One more way this issue brings attention to diverse domains of expertise is through its pilot of the “CRediT-FAIR” system of acknowledging non-authorial contributions to knowledge production. This issue inaugurates a new taxonomy that acknowledges the different ways individuals contribute to a project that may not look like “authorship” in the traditional form. CRediT-FAIR adapts the “Contributor Role Taxonomy” (CRediT) stewarded by the National Information Standards Organization, adding new roles that accommodate both arts-integrated and community engaged research.

Reflecting on the collection

As with all Ground Works publications, this special collection aims to bring new visibility to groundbreaking projects and the distinctive processes that make them sing. However, some aspects of the material also remain unseen. Consistent with many of the critiques brought by this collection’s contributors, readers may well ask “Who or what might be missing from this picture through exclusion or occlusion?”

In reviewing the collection in near-finished form, a group of our reviewers observed a few such absences. For example, as focused as these projects are on the people they serve, we see and hear quite sparingly from those people directly. In its economy of presentation, the collection also occludes the sheer difficulty of achieving such work—the waiting for resources or institutional approval, the navigation of systems at times seemingly designed to prevent success, the wrestling over interpersonal disagreements or misalignments in goals, or the walking with community partners on whom many may depend for stability amidst inhospitable conditions.

In other words, it is important to note in an introduction to a collection like this one that the work at hand is importantly human and as a result, often messy, slow, and challenging. Consider how the CRedit-FAIR system employed here to give appropriate visibility to all contributors also multiplies the labor-hours needed to see these projects to publication. Or how the seemingly resolved matter of a built public structure or well-designed exhibit stands to occlude the unusually challenging work undertaken by those who made it. Different versions of this collection could offer a myriad different perspectives on these projects, highlighting such factors as the changes in heart or mind that took place in contributors, the changes in conditions for those served, or even the changes in institutional process or policy necessary to achieving them.

One way that we seek to better foreground the experiences and stories of project participants is through a virtual round table in spring 2025. We are inviting participants across this edition’s partnerships to come together to share and discuss their experiences, to reflect on the value of partnering, and to offer suggestions on improving the processes within university-community collaborations. The round table also provides an opportunity for readers to join the conversation. Materials coming out of the round table such as recordings and reflections will become part of Creating Knowledge in Common.

-Shannon Criss, Kevin Hamilton, and Mary Pat McGuire


Footnotes

x

Metadata

License:


Creating Knowledge in Common © 2024 by Shannon Criss, Kevin Hamilton, and Mary Pat McGuire is licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0

Published:

November 14, 2024

DOI

https://doi.org/10.48807/2024.2.0002

Views

96 views

Acknowledgements

The editors wish to thank the many individuals who gave countless hours to the shaping of this special collection from its earliest conception through the submission and review process, editing and eventual publication. The collection itself, like the projects included within, reflects the tremendous amount of labor necessary to achieving projects justly and rightly for which little in the way of templates or precedents exist. As within arts-integrative research more broadly, efforts that chart new paths, when done rightly, often require additional work and care to ensure rigor, inclusion, and documentation of process. The Ground Works editorial process, up to and even including the new CRediT-FAIR system for recognizing contributors, has been an ideal framework for exercising such care. The editors are glad to offer their thanks to the following:

Veronica Stanich, Managing Editor of Ground Works, deserves first thanks and recognition for her tireless, patient, curious, and principled leadership of this collection’s realization across multiple roles, with project administration and supervision not least among them. She deserves all the credit for the very conceptualization of Ground Works as a best-in-class peer-reviewed platform that models right, humane, rigorous, and caring approaches to all contributors at every stage of involvement.

Daragh Byrne, Technical Director of Ground Works, drew from both his history with the conceptualization of this review platform and rigor as a scholar and designer to provide critical input to the process, and essential contributions to the production (technical) associated with the collection’s online manifestation as a beautifully-designed reader experience.

The authors and contributors for each of this collection’s ten entries deserve our great thanks not only for their writing across multiple drafts and edits, but for their tremendous patience with our sometimes multiple returns for further clarification (and over long periods while we sometimes ourselves struggled to return to the work among our many commitments).

The following were key to supporting the editors’ conceptualization of this issue at initial stages through review and critical input of the call for submissions:

  • Julienne Greer
  • Amy Hillis
  • Maija Mallula
  • Maria C. Olivares
  • Norma Saldivar
  • Garrett Schumann
  • Laura Shackelford
  • Veronica Stanich
  • Other members of the 2023 Ground Works Editorial Board (Byrne, Cass, Fraser, Kang, Knochel, Lorek, McNair, Mercer, Noble, Ordway, Sutters)
  • Members of the 2023 Ground Works Advisory Board (Ball, Beck, Chambliss, Malina)

Fulfilling Ground Works’ model for suitability review at Stage One, the following individuals reviewed preliminary submissions relative to the criteria for this special collection. As such their contributions deserve recognition for the writing they provided through forms of review and editing:

  • Audrey G. Bennet
  • Rodrigo Cadiz
  • J.R. Campbell
  • Robin Cass
  • Zachary Duer
  • Julienne Greer
  • Eric Handman
  • Alexandra Harbold
  • Luvada Harrison
  • Mihyun Kang
  • Julian Kilker
  • Jinku Kim
  • Lisa McNair
  • Lisa Mercer
  • Maria C. Olivares
  • Cristián Opazo
  • Kirsi Peltomaki
  • Nicole Hodges Persley
  • Norma Saldivar
  • Garrett Schumann
  • Laura Shackelford
  • Stephen Taylor
  • Jacqueline Wernimont

The editors are especially thankful for the yet deeper work and reflection provided by Stage Two reviews of submissions’ full narratives and media. In addition to providing critical writing (review and editing) contributions, they also lent essential reflective analysis to our review of submissions and subsequent revisions. These included: 

  • John Arroyo
  • Audrey G. Bennett
  • Ruth Nicole Brown
  • Juanli Carrion
  • José Cotto
  • Ronit Eisenbach
  • Shelly Goebl-Parker
  • Lissy Goralnik
  • Nils Gore
  • Seojoo Han
  • Maria Harrington
  • Erin James
  • Julian Kilker
  • Emily Kutil
  • Claire Latane
  • Kelley Lemon
  • Indrani Margolin
  • Morna McDermott McNulty
  • Lisa Mercer
  • Erkin Özay
  • Nalini Prakash
  • Michaele Pride
  • Maura Rockcastle
  • Garrett Schumann
  • Laura Shackelford
  • Joshua Stein
  • Tamara Underiner
  • Allison Upshaw
  • Frederick van Amstel
  • Marion Wilson
  • Daniel Winterbottom
  • Şevin Yildiz

And finally (within the evolution of this collection) the following returned to review the entire issue in draft form to provide essential reflective analysis and validation of the results of our work as editors:

  • John Arroyo
  • Ruth Nicole Brown
  • José Cotto

As powerful as the CRediT-Fair system is for recognizing the many ways in which others contributed to a work like this, it still does not adequately allow for the recognition of those who have been present throughout the formation of this collection, supporting it through encouragement, presence, curiosity, and hospitality, such as Nils Gore. And for love and ever present investigation, we thank the creatures Hank, Luna, Monte, Patsy, Remi, and Ruthie.


Contributors

Shannon Criss: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, Reflective Analysis, Writing – original draft
Kevin Hamilton: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, Reflective Analysis, Writing – original draft
Mary Pat McGuire: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, Reflective Analysis, Writing – original draft
Daragh Byrne: Conceptualization, Production - Technical, Visualization
Veronica Stanich: Conceptualization, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Reflective Analysis
Julienne Greer: Conceptualization Writing – review & editing
Amy Hillis: Conceptualization
Maria Olivares: Conceptualization Writing – review & editing
Norma Saldivar: Conceptualization Writing – review & editing
Garrett Schumann: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Reflective Analysis
Laura Shackelford: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Reflective Analysis
Robin Cass: Conceptualization Writing – review & editing
Cassandra Fraser: Conceptualization
Mihyun Kang: Conceptualization Writing – review & editing
Aaron D. Knochel: Conceptualization
Amy Lorek: Conceptualization
Lisa McNair: Conceptualization Writing – review & editing
Lisa Mercer: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Reflective Analysis
Melissa Noble: Conceptualization
Scott Ordway: Conceptualization
Justin Sutters: Conceptualization
Cheryl Ball: Conceptualization
Stephen Beck: Conceptualization
Julian Chambliss: Conceptualization
Roger Malina: Conceptualization
Maija Mallula: Conceptualization
Audrey G. Bennett: Writing – review & editing Reflective Analysis
Cristián Opazo: Writing – review & editing
JR Campbell: Writing – review & editing
Zach Duer: Writing – review & editing
Eric Handman: Writing – review & editing
Alexandra Harbold: Writing – review & editing
Luvada Harrison: Writing – review & editing
Julian Kilker: Writing – review & editing Reflective Analysis
Jinku Kim: Writing – review & editing
Kirsi Peltomäki: Writing – review & editing
Nicole Hodges Persley: Writing – review & editing
Stephen Taylor: Writing – review & editing
Jacqueline Wernimont: Writing – review & editing
John Arroyo: Reflective Analysis, Writing – review & editing, Validation
Ruth Nicole Brown: Reflective Analysis, Writing – review & editing, Validation
Juanli Carrion: Reflective Analysis Writing – review & editing
Jose Cotto: Reflective Analysis, Writing – review & editing, Validation
Ronit Eisenbach: Reflective Analysis Writing – review & editing
Shelly Goebl-Parker: Reflective Analysis Writing – review & editing
Lissy Goralnik: Reflective Analysis Writing – review & editing
Nils Gore: Reflective Analysis Writing – review & editing
Seojoo Han: Reflective Analysis Writing – review & editing
Maria Harrington: Reflective Analysis Writing – review & editing
Erin James: Reflective Analysis Writing – review & editing
Emily Kutil: Reflective Analysis Writing – review & editing
Kelley Lemon: Reflective Analysis Writing – review & editing
Indrani Margolin: Reflective Analysis Writing – review & editing
Morna McDermott McNulty: Reflective Analysis Writing – review & editing
Erkin Özay: Reflective Analysis Writing – review & editing
Nalini Prakash: Reflective Analysis Writing – review & editing
Michaele Pride: Reflective Analysis Writing – review & editing
Maura Rockcastle: Reflective Analysis Writing – review & editing
Joshua Stein: Reflective Analysis Writing – review & editing
Tamara Underiner: Reflective Analysis Writing – review & editing
Allison Upshaw: Reflective Analysis Writing – review & editing
Frederick van Amstel: Reflective Analysis Writing – review & editing
Marion Wilson: Reflective Analysis Writing – review & editing
Daniel Winterbottom: Reflective Analysis Writing – review & editing
Sevin Yildiz: Reflective Analysis Writing – review & editing
Rodrigo Cadiz: Writing – review & editing
Claire Latane: No contribution roles listed

Roles

Conceptualization: Shannon Criss, Kevin Hamilton, Mary Pat McGuire, Daragh Byrne, Veronica Stanich, Julienne Greer, Amy Hillis, Maria Olivares, Norma Saldivar, Garrett Schumann, Laura Shackelford, Robin Cass, Cassandra Fraser, Mihyun Kang, Aaron D. Knochel, Amy Lorek, Lisa McNair, Lisa Mercer, Melissa Noble, Scott Ordway, Justin Sutters, Cheryl Ball, Stephen Beck, Julian Chambliss, Roger Malina,, Maija Mallula.
Methodology: Shannon Criss, Kevin Hamilton, Mary Pat McGuire,, Veronica Stanich.
Project administration: Shannon Criss, Kevin Hamilton, Mary Pat McGuire,, Veronica Stanich.
Reflective Analysis: Shannon Criss, Kevin Hamilton, Mary Pat McGuire, Veronica Stanich, Garrett Schumann, Laura Shackelford, Lisa Mercer, Audrey G. Bennett, Julian Kilker, John Arroyo, Ruth Nicole Brown, Juanli Carrion, Jose Cotto, Ronit Eisenbach, Shelly Goebl-Parker, Lissy Goralnik, Nils Gore, Seojoo Han, Maria Harrington, Erin James, Emily Kutil, Kelley Lemon, Indrani Margolin, Morna McDermott McNulty, Erkin Özay, Nalini Prakash, Michaele Pride, Maura Rockcastle, Joshua Stein, Tamara Underiner, Allison Upshaw, Frederick van Amstel, Marion Wilson, Daniel Winterbottom,, Sevin Yildiz.
Writing – original draft: Shannon Criss, Kevin Hamilton,, Mary Pat McGuire.
Production - Technical: Daragh Byrne.
Visualization: Daragh Byrne.
Supervision: Veronica Stanich.
Writing – review & editing: Veronica Stanich, Julienne Greer, Maria Olivares, Norma Saldivar, Garrett Schumann, Laura Shackelford, Robin Cass, Mihyun Kang, Lisa McNair, Lisa Mercer, Audrey G. Bennett, Cristián Opazo, JR Campbell, Zach Duer, Eric Handman, Alexandra Harbold, Luvada Harrison, Julian Kilker, Jinku Kim, Kirsi Peltomäki, Nicole Hodges Persley, Stephen Taylor, Jacqueline Wernimont, John Arroyo, Ruth Nicole Brown, Juanli Carrion, Jose Cotto, Ronit Eisenbach, Shelly Goebl-Parker, Lissy Goralnik, Nils Gore, Seojoo Han, Maria Harrington, Erin James, Emily Kutil, Kelley Lemon, Indrani Margolin, Morna McDermott McNulty, Erkin Özay, Nalini Prakash, Michaele Pride, Maura Rockcastle, Joshua Stein, Tamara Underiner, Allison Upshaw, Frederick van Amstel, Marion Wilson, Daniel Winterbottom, Sevin Yildiz,, Rodrigo Cadiz.
Validation: John Arroyo, Ruth Nicole Brown,, Jose Cotto.
denotes by-line credit.