Prospective PhD students who are interested in working with me can apply to UMD iSchool's PhD in Information Studies program and mention my name in your application. If you have a background or an interdisciplinary background in information science (esp. those from informatics, HCI, AI, data science, computational social science tracks) / (social) psychology / (quantitative) communication / computer science (with interests in social science) / statistics or mathematics (with interests in social science) / public health / other related fields, I welcome your application. 

Admissions decisions are made collectively by the iSchool community. You can (but you don't have to) email me prior to your application, and I typically do not speak to candidates in advance of the admissions process - this allows me to treat candidates equitably during the official review process. I aim to review all applications that mention my name and pass the initial screening by the admissions committee, and will invite those shortlisted candidates for an interview (around late December/early January). Please note that, I’m unable to provide feedback or evaluation on individual application materials in advance to ensure fairness in the review process. I also cannot answer whether an applicant will be accepted or not before you apply, as individual faculty members do not make admissions decisions on our own.

Please check these links for more information on PhD application via UMD iSchool and graduate school: 

https://ischool.umd.edu/academics/phd-information-studies/admissions; https://ischool.umd.edu/academics/phd-information-studies/; https://gradschool.umd.edu/funding/assistantship-information; https://gradschool.umd.edu/funding/student-fellowships-awards  

During your PhD journey, I'm here to support you as you explore ideas, critically engage with theories and literature, rigorously design and conduct data analysis for your research projects, and define and pursue your own research trajectory and career path. PhD study is a time to develop intellectual independence, and my role is to support, guide, and challenge you as you shape your scholarly identity. 

I aim to provide consistent and flexible support for my PhD advisees. In general, I am available to meet weekly or biweekly, depending on your needs and the stage of your work. I value both my time and yours, and believe our meetings should be as frequent and as long as is productive, but no more than that. Regular check-ins should serve to maintain momentum, address challenges, and support your intellectual and professional development. To help ensure our advising and research meetings are focused and efficient, I strongly encourage students to prepare and share a brief agenda with me before each meeting. These meetings can cover progress updates, brainstorming, feedback, or anything else that feels relevant - including roadblocks - whether academic, logistical, or beyond. I’d much rather hear about a potential issue early, even if it turns out to be minor, than too late when it’s harder to address. Open, ongoing communication helps us stay aligned and allows me to better support you. I also encourage my advisees to set their semester goals (short-term) and 3–5 year goals (medium-term) at the beginning of each semester so that I can better support you based on your goals. Setting clear goals helps provide direction, maintain focus, and track your progress throughout your academic journey. We review the goals together and refine them as needed to ensure they remain realistic and aligned with your evolving aspirations.

Even though our program guarantees funding for all admitted full-time students, typically through teaching assistantships, research assistantships, or university fellowships, I strongly encourage my PhD students to look for opportunities and apply for additional internal and external fellowships and research grants throughout their PhD studies. These opportunities include major external awards like the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (NSF GRFP; for those eligible), corporate fellowships (e.g., from Microsoft, Google), and dissertation funding such as the National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant (NSF DDRIG; I was awarded one during my own PhD study) or the Social Science Research Council (SSRC) fellowships. UMD also offers competitive internal funding through programs like TRAILS and AIM. When I was a graduate student at Cornell and a postdoc at UW, I applied and received multiple competitive internal grants, and those were very rewarding experiences. Preparing these applications helps you clarify your research vision and sharpen your thinking. When you receive an award, it gives you more flexibility in your research, adds a strong credential to your CV, and creates more space for us to collaborate on deepening and refining your ideas. I'm happy to support you through this process, from identifying appropriate opportunities to brainstorming and reviewing drafts. Writing grant proposals is a skill that will serve you well in any research-driven career, and it’s worth developing early.

I support a range of career paths you are interested in pursuing, including those within or outside of academia, and I’m happy to help you think through and prepare for different options. My personal trajectory and experience are best aligned with students aiming for academic research careers.

The best way to contact me is via my work email (and through our advising meetings, of course). I try my best to be responsive and attentive to your needs. My working hours may differ from yours, and you should never feel obligated to reply to messages I send outside of normal work hours. I fully support your efforts to maintain a healthy and sustainable work rhythm.

I personally believe that successful scholarship is sustainable only when it is part of a balanced life. I encourage my students to set boundaries, maintain interests outside of work, and take care of their physical and mental well-being. As part of maintaining healthy boundaries, I prefer not to connect with students on personal social media platforms before you graduate (with the exception of professional sites like LinkedIn, BSky, etc.), as I see those spaces as part of your personal life, and prefer to respect that separation.

As I also acknowledged in my bio page, I have been incredibly fortunate to receive exceptional mentorship from my own academic advisors: Dr. Emma Spiro at UW, Dr. Jeff Niederdeppe at Cornell, Dr. Erin Ash at Clemson. I still maintain regular contact with them, as good mentorship can turn into a lifelong relationship. They were committed to my success; so will I be to my advisees. 

This is intended as a living document, and I update it when needed.

(acknowledgment: some content in this part was inspired by Drs. Jessica Gall Myrick, Mor Naaman, Sarita Yardi Schoenebeck, Eric Gilbert. I encourage you to take a look at this very comprehensive Ph.D. Syllabus from Dr. Eric Gilbert. I also encourage you to take a look at this very thoughtful paragraph on checking/recognizing potential gender biases written by Dr. Jessica Myrick.)

If you would like to invite me to serve on your PhD dissertation committee, please include the following information in your initial email. Providing these details upfront will help me assess the alignment between your research and my expertise, and determine whether I can be of meaningful support to your work.   

• Your full name and program: Include your college/school/department, degree program (e.g., PhD in [Program Name]), and advisor(s)' name(s).  

• Dissertation topic / working title: A brief overview or working title of your dissertation. This helps me understand your general area of research.  

• Abstract or research summary (1–2 paragraphs): Please include a short summary of your research focus, including your central research question(s)  

• Methodological approach  

• Key theories or frameworks you’re engaging with (if applicable)  

• Your rationale for inviting me: A brief explanation of why you’re inviting me to join your committee, e.g., how my expertise is relevant to your topic, or what kind of input you hope I can provide.  

• Your anticipated timeline:  Proposal defense, dissertation research/writing, final defense  

• Any relevant documents (optional, but helpful): You may attach your dissertation proposal (draft or finalized), CV, or other relevant materials if available.  

Before you email: Please confirm with your advisor(s) that they approve of the proposed committee composition. Check any institutional guidelines or eligibility criteria for committee membership, especially if I am external to your department or institution.

https://academiccatalog.umd.edu/graduate/policies/doctoral-degrees-policies/#doctoral-dissertation-and-examination 

Masters/Undergraduate students: I occasionally accept advanced undergraduate and Masters students (preferably enrolled at my institution) to conduct research. If you reach out, please include your CV, your transcripts, and the following information in your email:

• Which research areas (or specific research questions and problems) interest you? What methodology you plan to use or are most interested in learning?

• How do you want to get involved? Depending on your goals, skills, and availability - example roles include:

  1. Independent study or thesis research under my supervision. If this is the case, please provide the following information: 

     • A working title or brief description of your proposed research

     • The research questions or problems you plan to explore

     • The methodologies or approaches you intend to use

     • Your timeline (e.g., which semester(s) you plan to work on this project)

     • Whether this will fulfill any degree or departmental requirements

  2. Research assistant (volunteer or for-credit) for ongoing projects led by me or led by one of my advanced graduate students (depending on availability):

     • This typically involves supporting tasks such as for literature review; study design; data collection, cleaning, analysis; tool development; other technical or analytical support; etc. 

• Why is my research group the right place to conduct this research? How my expertise is relevant to your learning goals, or what kind of guidance you hope I can provide?

• What do you hope to get out of this collaboration?

• Are you proficient in R and/or Python? If so, what frameworks (ML, NLP, statistical analytics, data visualization, etc.) are you familiar with? If you have sample code from an open source project (not a class project), please send a link.

• Have you worked with other faculty before on research? If so, summarize what you worked on.

• Have you taken any courses with content in data science, (quantitative) research methods, statistics, NLP, AI, HCI, data/text mining (including any you are currently enrolled in)?

• If you have any research publications (for conferences, journals), please include these as an attachment and describe your contributions.

I will agree to write letters for students only if I am confident I can write a strong letter that will help your application. This is because a short, thin, or lukewarm letter is more likely to hurt your chances of admission into a program than help them. You should give me at least three weeks advance notice, and preferably more.

1. If you work(ed) with me closely (and ideally for at least 6 months) on research projects that I'm leading or supervising / I led or supervised in the past, you can email me to discuss about your potential LoR requests. 

2. If you were a student in my class, will I write you a letter of recommendation?

Like I said above, I will agree to write letters for students in my classes only if I am confident I can write a strong letter that will help your application. In general, if you did not actively participate in class or work with me outside of class in some manner (e.g., as a TA or participating in research), I would recommend that you ask someone else who knows you better and can speak to your qualities. In other words, I should have some sense of your skills, work ethic, and personality that goes beyond just the grade you received in my class.

I also ask that you meet the following criteria:

• You have fully completed a class with me

• You did well in my class

• You give me at least three weeks advance notice, and preferably more

• You will waive your right to read your letter

In addition to all this, it also matters what the letter of recommendation will be used for. If you are applying to Masters programs or fellowships, meeting the above criteria is generally sufficient. If you are applying to PhD programs, I will write you a letter only if we have worked together in a research capacity.

(acknowledgment: this part was partially adapted from Drs. Benjamin Mako Hill, Lucy Lu Wang)

• Q: How would you describe your work style?

A: I am organized, plan-oriented, and prefer steady progress over last-minute sprints. I work best when expectations, timelines, and responsibilities are discussed early and revisited as needed, which allows me to provide more thoughtful, in-depth feedback and helps reduce unnecessary stress for everyone involved. I do not micromanage my advisees’ day-to-day work and do not expect frequent check-ins throughout the week. Instead, I am hands-on through regular (typically weekly) meetings, where I prefer to consolidate updates, discuss progress, and address questions or challenges. Outside of these check-ins, I am generally hands-off regarding how students organize their work and manage their own timelines, as long as we are aligned on goals and making steady progress toward them.

• Q: What are your expectations around conference or journal submissions when working with graduate students?  

A: I strongly prefer advance planning for all submissions. I do not work well with last-minute drafting or editing (e.g., the day before the deadline). Ideally, I would like to receive a complete draft at least 2–3 weeks before the submission deadline. Earlier is always better, especially for journal submissions or first-time conference submissions. This timeline allows me to: Block sufficient time for reading and editing; Provide substantive, not just surface-level, feedback; Allow time for revisions based on my comments.

In the best-case scenario, you will: Propose a submission timeline (e.g., outline → first draft → revised draft → final polish); Indicate when you would like feedback at each stage; Let me know when I should plan to block time for reviewing and editing. A clear plan helps us coordinate our schedules and ensures that the feedback cycle is productive and realistic.

• Q: How do you define authorship and how is authorship order determined?    

A: Authorship is based on substantial intellectual contribution to a research project. This typically includes intellictually meaningful involvement in one or more of the following: Developing the research question or theoretical framing; Designing the study or methodology; Collecting, analyzing, or interpreting data; Writing substantial portions of the manuscript; Revising the paper in response to feedback and reviews. Authorship is not granted solely for tasks such as pretesting a survey for your lab-mates, giving brief feedback during one's idea presentation, proofreading, data entry, administrative support, etc.

Authorship order reflects the relative level and nature of contribution, following norms in information science and related social science fields. First author: Usually the person who led the project and writing (often a graduate student when the project is their primary work); Middle authors: Contributed substantively but to a lesser degree; Last author: Often reflects a senior or supervisory role (e.g., PI or advisor), depending on field norms and project structure. Please feel free to bring up the discussion of authorship order early in the project and we can always revisit it as contributions evolve.

To make contributions transparent and explicit, we may refer to the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy: https://credit.niso.org/) when discussing roles and authorship. CRediT identifies specific contribution categories such as Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal Analysis, Data Curation, Writing, and Supervision. While not every contribution listed in CRediT automatically warrants authorship, this framework helps us clarify who did what and supports fair, consistent authorship decisions.

• Q: What are your expectations for student first authorship?  

A: I strongly support student first authorship when: The project is based on the student’s idea AND the student leads the writing and revision process. The student also takes primary responsibility for responding to feedback and reviewer comments. My role in these cases is typically supportive and developmental, even if my feedback is extensive. Student first authors are expected to: Drive the project forward and keep it on schedule; Coordinate drafts and revisions among co-authors; Incorporate feedback thoughtfully; Draft and manage responses to reviewers (with guidance); Communicate clearly about timelines and deadlines. First authorship comes with both credit and responsibility.

• Q: Do you support your advisees collaborating with other faculty, external researchers, or engaging in academic activities outside of UMD?  

A: In general, I am supportive of advisees collaborating with other professors, external researchers, and engaging in academic activities beyond UMD, as these experiences can be valuable for intellectual growth and career development. At the same time, it is important to prioritize core responsibilities and primary research commitments. For example, when a student is supported by a research assistantship, the RA project should be treated as a top priority, and when a student is working on their dissertation or thesis, steady progress on that work should take precedence. I also generally encourage students to prioritize projects in which they have a leading role, rather than taking on additional commitments that may dilute their focus. I do not directly tell students what they should or should not pursue; instead, I am always happy to help them think through how to prioritize their time across multiple projects, evaluate which opportunities best support their research goals and long-term career trajectory, identify when certain activities may be helpful versus when they may become distractions, and discuss whether there may be potential conflicts of interest, competing obligations, or misaligned expectations across different roles or collaborations. I also appreciate being kept informed about students’ different academic involvements so that I have a holistic understanding of what they are working on, which allows me to provide more thoughtful guidance, anticipate potential challenges, and offer insights as needed.

• Q: If I develop a class project from your course into a publication or proceeding, do you expect to be included as a co-author?  

A: No. If you continue the project after the course on your own or primarily with your advisor, you are under no obligation to invite me to remain involved or to include me as a co-author—even if the project originated in my class and I provided extensive feedback as part of the course. Providing detailed feedback, helping you refine ideas, and supporting your early-stage thinking are core parts of my role as an instructor and do not by themselves constitute authorship.  That said, you are very welcome to invite me to collaborate on the project after the course proposal stage if—and only if—you believe my expertise is a strong fit for the project, either topically, methodologically, or both. If you would like me to play an active, ongoing collaborative role beyond the course (e.g., shaping theory, methods, analysis, or writing), I am happy to do so, assuming we mutually agree on expectations, scope of involvement, and timelines.  In cases where I am involved as a post-course collaborator, it is often ideal—though not required—for your primary advisor to also be actively involved, especially for graduate student-led projects. Clear communication and alignment among all mentors is important. 

To summarize: Course feedback alone does not imply authorship. Post-course collaboration is optional and student-initiated. Authorship is appropriate only if I make a substantive intellectual contribution beyond the course, consistent with standard authorship criteria. You should never feel pressured or obligated to include me as a co-author simply because the project began in my class. If you are unsure whether a collaboration or authorship discussion is appropriate, I encourage you to ask—we can always talk it through openly and early.

• Q: Do you collaborate with graduate students who are not your PhD advisees?  

A: Yes. I am always happy to collaborate with graduate students who are not my formal advisees, provided a few conditions are met: You can clearly articulate what expertise, guidance, or perspective you are seeking from me; Why you think our research interests are a good fit; Your primary advisor is aware of and supportive of the collaboration. Transparency and alignment among all mentors involved are very important.

When reaching out, please include: A brief description of the project or idea  Your current stage (e.g., early idea, data collected, draft in progress); What kind of input or role you are hoping I can play; Any relevant deadlines or time constraints. This helps me assess whether and how I can best support you.