UMHC Conference

Dissemination is an important part of the research process. It is sharing what you have contributed to your field in hopes of your work eventually becoming a basis for future discussion and additions. I had one experience with dissemination heading into my final year of college, presenting the work of the Lincoln Legacy class along with my classmates to university administration. However, this presentation was for people who already knew about the project. I thought presenting the outline of the project to an audience unfamiliar with the project would be a great opportunity to both share Minnesota State University, Mankato’s process of creating a comprehensive exhibit and shed light on the topic of commemoration, statues, and memorials in general. I was able to have this opportunity to present at the 2024 Upper Midwest Regional Honors Conference 2024 (UMHC).

​

The majority of the research conducted for this presentation was done during the Lincoln Legacy course, so this reflection will not be a lot about the actual research, rather it will focus on the presentation aspect. The designated amount of time for the presentation was fifteen to twenty minutes, which for most people would probably be more than enough time. I personally could talk uninterrupted about the topic for at least forty-five minutes. There were six main areas I wanted to touch on within the given time frame. For context, I wanted to briefly talk about iconography, statues and memorials, and how perceptions on these statues can change over time. To have at least some comparison, I wanted to include a couple of examples of other universities that had statues that were shrouded in controversy. Next, I thought going over the administrative process of deciding to relocate the statue and create an exhibit would be a good precursor before talking about my involvement. In my involvement I set aside the most time to elaborate on the step-by-step process we took to the project, why we did everything we did, and the challenges that faced us. The next two parts were extremely quick, I summarized the remaining steps of the project and concluded by outlining a format I thought would be useful for universities to use in future scenarios involving controversial statues or memorials.

​

One thing I deliberately tried to do with the time I had was anticipate questions that would be asked based off the questions I was asked when presenting to university administration, and in general by people simply interested in the project. The most frequent question is about the challenges we faced during the process. I made sure to mention my struggles with word limits and writing in a singular voice for exhibit text. Another common inquiry is about what specifically makes the topic complicated. During the “my involvement” section I tried to concisely but adequately provide a summary of Lincoln’ s role in the hanging of the Dakota thirty-eight, the fact that the hangings happened in Mankato, and the context prior to the war for which the Dakota were hanged. I thought for certain there would be questions asking me to further elaborate on one of these aspects, but to my surprise there were not.

​

I was extremely anxious heading into the presentation because I for some reason felt much more weighted than when I had to present to university administration. I am not sure if it was because I was presenting alone, presenting mainly to an unfamiliar audience, or a mixture of both. Ultimately, it may just be presenting itself that gets me anxious, who knows. Once I got through the first two minutes, I felt more comfortable and was able to ignore the outline I had printed in case I panicked. I tried to determine the engagement in the room by periodically looking around, I thought everyone in the room seemed intrigued throughout my presentation. I also am under the impression that a lot of people were unaware of Mankato’s exhibit, understandably, so it was cool to spread something I helped with that is unique to my university. I have been told that Mankato is the first university in the nation to create a comprehensive exhibit on campus to accompany a statue or memorial. While I am not certain on the validity of this statement, I do think is at the very least indicative of the divergence Mankato has taken in coming up with a answer of what to do with a controversial statue.

​

The framework I had previously mentioned for universities to use in future scenarios involving controversial statues or memorials, consisted of three basic steps, and was largely influenced by my experience in the Lincoln Legacy class. The first was to determine the original reason for the statue’s creation and the intended meaning. The second is to look at how perceptions of the statue and figure have evolved. The last step is to determine current perceptions and compare that to the university or institution’s values and beliefs. One question I received asked if I thought this process would work well for assessing donors. This question caught me completely off guard. I was initially curious if it was indirectly positing about a current controversy or something, but it turned out to just be a hypothetical question. I answered by saying a version of it could potentially work, but I was unsure how common it is to reject donations. It was a thought-provoking question that got me to contemplate factors I had not considered.

​

Another great question I had been asked was what I thought the most important characteristic of Lincoln was. I think in the grand scheme of things there is no singular important characteristic of Lincoln, action, or speech, it is rather an amalgam of all those things. After all, people are complicated beings with flaws and positive qualities, and this applies to historical figures as well. However, I did not want to give an overly generic answer, so I mentioned how I thought Lincoln’s humility was important because it allowed him to change with time and be open to new perspectives. I recognize this may be an opinion, but then again, the question did ask for my opinion. My intent of answering like that was to limit the answer to one variable, but still be broad enough to get people thinking about what I meant and investigate the topic deeper. Perhaps they find evidence that sways them in a different direction, but at the end of the day what matters is the discourse and consideration of a wide range of variables and perspectives. That is the goal of the Lincoln statue exhibit at Mankato and was likewise a goal of my presentation.

​

In the future I hope to be able to expand my framework to more examples, maybe even to outside the realm of commemoration as suggested by one of the questions. The time limits of this presentation helped push me to be very intentional with what I chose to mention verbally and even more so when considering what to put on the slides. This experience will help me be more selective in future opportunities to disseminate. I will be able to highlight the main themes of a project and still provide some basic contextual information. The more I present hopefully the more comfortable I get so I can grow better. The one element that was missing in the question portion of the presentation was a contention about an element of the presentation. While I appreciate the positive feedback, constructive criticism is a great way to grow and may be something that I can learn from in future experiences.