Many authors have borrowed the title of Raymond Carver's collection of short stories, What We Talk About When We Talk About Love, to frame their explorations of everything from hip hop to running to games. Like Carver and those who have echoed him, we want to surface the multiple dimensions that are integral to our, as to any, complex subject. We acknowledge that the terms used to capture that complexity carry with them intended and unintended associations (such as those with Carver himself). In reference to "students as partners," not only the explicit what and when but also the implicit why can evoke a variety of associations and reactions. A single short story among many, this editorial is one installment in a series of ongoing discussions of what we talk about when we talk about "students as partners."We, in this case, are two students and two academics/faculty working in partnership as four (of a total of eight) co-editors who intentionally chose the term "students as partners" for this journal's name. Our goals in attempting to unpack this term are to acknowledge and to invite further dialogue about the variety of reactions the term provokes and to move us toward developing generative theories of partnership praxis (Matthews et al., in 2018a). The term aims to capture an aspiration for working together in higher education in a way that rejects traditional hierarchies and assumptions about expertise and responsibility. However, by naming only one participant in the partnership and not specifying the nature of that partnership, the term can evoke associations and feelings that undermine that aspirational aspect. For these and other reasons, some practitioners and scholars might prefer to use whatever term suits their local context, letting, as IJSaP Advisory Board and faculty member Peter Felten puts it, "a thousand flowers bloom with the naming of this (widely varied and highly contextual) practice" (personal communication, August 9, 2018). But as "an umbrella term" (Healey, Flint, & Harrington, 2014) with wide recognition, "students as partners" can create a community of practitioners and scholars committed to working together through partnership in higher education. NOTE ON CONTRIBUTORS

Faculty, Students, and Academic Developers in Higher Education as the inaugural publication in the Center for Engaged Learning Open Access Book Series. Alison Cook-Sather, Melanie Bahti, and Anita Ntem present research-informed practices for establishing and sustaining pedagogical partnerships focused on classrooms and curricula. This integration of theory, research, and practice will continue to be a hallmark of the series, which provides an alternate publishing option for high-quality engaged learning books that align with the Center's mission, goals, and initiatives, and that experiment with genre or medium in ways that take advantage of an online and open access format. Internationally, higher education discussions about pedagogical partnership, also known as students-as-partners or student-faculty/ student-staff partnership, have steadily increased over the past decade. Pedagogical partnership is examined in dedicated journals and in other scholarly teaching and scholarship of teaching and learning publications. With this book, though, Cook-Sather, Bahti, and Ntem offer the unique contribution of a how-to guide that addresses how to enact pedagogical partnership in systematic and equitable ways. At the same time, they acknowledge the challenges of this often countercultural work and share practically focused strategies for building pedagogical partnership programs. Pedagogical Partnerships explicitly speaks to faculty, students, program directors, and academic developers, among others, and it draws examples from diverse institutions across the globe. With this rich array of examples and careful consideration for readers' own institutional contexts, the xii | PEDAGOGICAL PARTNERSHIPS authors avoid being prescriptive in their strategies for partnership. As a result, readers will be able to adapt the authors' strategies for a range of institution types and budgets. The how-to guide also models partnership; two of the three authors are recently graduated students. Throughout the book, the authors share glimpses into their own partnerships. Notably, Pedagogical Partnerships is not merely a stand-alone, open access book. The authors also created nearly three dozen supplemental resources that are referenced in the book (and linked in the online version) and shared on the book's website. These resources extend the descriptive nature of this how-to guide, illustrating many of the strategies the authors describe or offering additional opportunities for readers to reflect on how these pedagogical partnerships could be enacted in their own contexts. We are grateful to Alison, Melanie, and Anita for authoring such a dynamic book to initiate the Center for Engaged Learning Open Access Book Series, and we are confident that you will find many helpful takeaways in this accessible how-to guide. We encourage you to bookmark the Pedagogical Partnerships website for quick reference as you (re)design your own classroom and curricular partnerships and to share this book and its resources widely.

In this article, we explore forms of psychological resistance that 10 female students perceived in their faculty partners and in themselves in the context of a pedagogical partnership program in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. Positioning these students as “holders and creators of knowledge” (Delgado-Bernal, 2002, p. 106), our analysis draws on literature in academic development and psychology and on student responses to research questions to discuss how these student partners built resiliencies through the approaches they took to engaging the resistances they perceived. We first present the resistances these student partners perceived in their faculty partners and what factors they think might have contributed to such resistances. Next, we describe the approaches the student partners took to working through the resistances they perceived and the resistances they experienced in themselves. Finally, we analyze the ways that student partners developed resiliencies through productively engaging these forms of resistance.

No abstract

No abstract