I’m excited to announce the scholars who will be coming together this fall to share thoughts on where the field is going. Part of my role as a member of the Student Advisory Board is to gather together a panel each year that addresses concerns that students in our field might have. This year, I invited scholars whom I felt could have a significant contribution regarding several related questions: What problems do you see in the field? What topics or approaches no longer need to be rehashed? What are issues that you have encountered that you don’t plan on pursuing yourself, but believe needs to be explored in the field? Are there certain methodologies or approaches that you believe are particularly ripe for exploration?

As the description states, “We plan to have a candid conversation, based upon the panelists’ own experiences, in which graduate students who feel stuck might find a glimmer of hope, a new path they might pursue, and/or a new set of questions to ask about their research.” Naturally, a grad student’s first resource is her own professors. But “outside the box” thinking often provides us with the sparks we need to realize a new question or insight for our research.

The panel is astounding and they have expressed excitement about the discussion and its importance. I can’t wait to see what they have to share on the topic. Included are a variety of perspectives coming from a range of specialties. See for yourself!

The panel I organized last year (“Finding Your ‘Niche’ in Biblical Studies”) was a huge success. I heard from more than one panelist that it was their most fulfilling experience in a session for some years. Students there told me that it was one of the most helpful sessions they attended. As one of the panelists, Mark Goodacre, remarked:

Pat McCullough organized a session entitled “Finding your ‘niche’ in Biblical Studies”.  There were five panelists, Christopher Hays, Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, Dale Martin and Paula Fredriksen and me. I have shared here in the blog the substance of my short presentation. I was hugely impressed with the other speakers, all of whom were witty, engaging, compelling. We had ten minutes or so each. The room was packed. There must have been two or three hundred people there, and there were people standing at the side. After we had finished speaking, the room emptied out a good deal, but then there was time for discussion of the topic and many of the contributions from the floor were excellent too.

I think the panel this year has the potential to be even more fulfilling than last year. Are there any questions or issues that you would like to see addressed by the panel (even if you won’t be able to be there)?

Update (6/24/2011): The discussion has already received some attention on the blogs, including a bit of satire from Deane Galbraith (see parts one, two, and three). Jim Davila offers his thoughts on what still needs to be done, namely reception history and bunches of textual criticism. Matt Dowling also spreads the news and shares his excitement–he was at the “niche” panel last year.