A Moment to Take Stock (and Keep Advocating)

By Beatrice Gurwitz, National Humanities Alliance

A photo of constituents meeting with a legislative staffer on the most recent Humanities Advocacy Day. — Photo credit: Morrison Photography

For three years in a row, the Trump administration has called for the elimination of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and other humanities funding streams. In both 2017 and 2018, thanks to robust advocacy from the humanities community, the Republican-controlled Congress rejected the administration’s efforts and passed increases for the NEH and several other humanities programs. This year, we are seeing support on Capitol Hill for even greater increases for the NEH and other humanities programs. The possibility of these increases is partly a result of the Democratic takeover of the House, but that isn’t the whole story—a Democratic majority has not always meant proposed increases for the humanities. Support for the NEH has grown on both sides of the aisle, largely as a result of our collective efforts to showcase just how valuable the humanities are to communities around the country.

In March, Humanities Advocacy Day participants urged Members of Congress to sign on to letters requesting increased funding for humanities programs, resulting in significant bipartisan support. In the House, a record-breaking 175 representatives, including 11 Republicans, endorsed a $12.5 million increase for the NEH, significantly higher than the incremental increases of $2 or $3 million over the past four years. A letter in the Senate, asking for the same increase, also received a record-breaking 44 signers (all Democrats). A record-breaking 106 Members of Congress, including 7 Republicans, signed another letter requesting a $44 million increase for the Department of Education’s international education programs (Title VI and Fulbright-Hays). This was a particularly ambitious request for programs that have not received increases for years.

More recently, the House passed funding bills that included significant increases for our priorities. In addition to passing the $12.5 million increase for the NEH and a nearly $17 million increase for the Department of Education’s international education programs, the House has passed increases for the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the Smithsonian, the National Park Service’s historic preservation programs, and the National Historical Publications and Records Administration, the grant-giving arm of the National Archives.

The Senate has yet to release its appropriations bills. While we know there is bipartisan support for humanities programs there as well, we are less likely to see increases of the same magnitude in the Senate’s bills. The House, Senate, and White House are currently re-negotiating caps for FY 2020 spending that were put in place nearly a decade ago under the Budget Control Act of 2011. Without renegotiated caps, FY 2020’s overall spending limit would be significantly lower than FY 2019’s. The House appropriations bills assume increased caps, and while the Senate bills will also likely assume increased caps, their assumptions will probably be somewhat lower than the House’s. In the end, the House might need to adjust the numbers in its appropriations bills downward if a final agreement sets caps lower than it is hoping. And if the House, Senate, and the President cannot reach an agreement, we may be heading to another government shutdown or a continuing resolution that maintains funding at FY 2019 levels.

While much remains to be seen, this is a moment to recognize the success of the humanities community’s efforts. In recent years, advocates have sent hundreds of thousands of messages to Members of Congress on behalf of the NEH, IMLS, NHPRC, and Title VI and Fulbright-Hays. We have also deepened research into the impact of federal funding and supported grantees in communicating their impact to local and national policymakers. We have organized in-district meetings that bring Members of Congress together with grantees from their districts so that they can hear first hand about the impact of the humanities in their communities. (Interested in working with us on one of these meetings? Let us know). And we have hosted briefings for Members of Congress and their staff that bring grantees to Capitol Hill to showcase their work. In June, for example, we were joined by the hosts of the BackStory podcast, who held a live show in the Russell Senate Office Building on “The Divided States of America,” which offered staffers a look at the importance of humanities research to understanding our contemporary moment.

This is also a prime moment to think about ways in which you can engage Members of Congress when they are home for August recess. Our district advocacy guide offers tips on scheduling a meeting with Members of Congress and for inviting them to events in the district. Offering a Member of Congress or their district staffer a behind the scenes tour of a special collection, a new exhibition on campus, or inviting them to visit an NEH-funded summer program are just a few examples of the efforts that have been successful in engaging Members of Congress across the country. Campus government relations officers are great partners for this kind of outreach, and we are always happy to help and brainstorm as well.

The past few years have been a testament to the power of relationship building. And now is a great time to keep building them.

About the Author: Beatrice Gurwitz is deputy director of the National Humanities Alliance (NHA). Prior to joining NHA, Gurwitz served as a consultant at the National Endowment for the Humanities and the U.S. Department of State. She has also taught at the University of Maryland and in the New York City public school system. She is the author of Argentine Jews in the Age of Revolt (Brill, 2016). Her writing has also appeared in Journal of Jewish Identities, Immigrants and Minorities, and the Chronicle of Higher Education. She holds a B.A. from Wesleyan University and a Ph.D. in History from the University of California, Berkeley. She can be reached at bgurwitz@nhalliance.org.

Public Engagement: Simplify Without Being Simple

By James Steur at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Public Engagement: Simplify Without Being Simple

As a first-generation student, one of my primary goals as an academic is pursuing public scholarship. I want to write in a clear and engaging way for general audiences so they understand political science research and why it makes a difference in their lives. Some people, like my parents, never had the opportunity to attend college and have a difficult time understanding why academic writing is essential. My parents, for instance, didn’t appreciate the concept of polarization the last time I visited home. After I explained what polarization meant and how it relates to Congress being more divided than ever, they began to care more about the implications of a polarized Congress. By making politics more approachable, I hope to engage the broader public with knowledge that produces more understanding, interest, and participation in politics.

My interest in public scholarship led me to attend the panel “Public Engagement: Blogging, Twitter & Podcasts 1 in Higher Ed” at this year’s MPSA conference. Six panelists with a variety of backgrounds talked about their experiences with public engagement. The nature of the conversation about public engagement varied greatly during the session and included discussions about podcasts, blogs, Twitter, and writing op-eds in newspapers. Although the panelists’ experiences and backgrounds were different, five common themes emerged:

Decide How To Frame Your Public Engagement
If you choose to participate in public engagement, be intentional in how you frame yourself as an engaged member of the public. One panelist, for example, tried framing his work as uncontested scientific research. By sticking to empirics, this panelist was able to curate a specific image as a researcher who was non-partisan on political issues. Another panelist took a different approach: he acknowledged his partisanship, some of his bias as a partisan, and wrote pointed op-eds about current events in newspapers. Each of the panelists took different approaches to frame their public engagement, but they all agreed you should be intentional in curating your brand. (Read one panelist’s perspective of the session.) Once you engage with the public in one manner, it can be challenging to change your reputation.
Write Clearly & Concisely
Writing a research article is different from writing blog posts. Research articles often include jargon, many references, and elaborate methods. All of these different parts of a research article culminate in 20 pages of text that can be challenging for even the most seasoned researcher to read. All of the panelists agreed that verbose and jargon-heavy blogs, podcasts, and newspapers articles are not ideal. Shorter, more accessible, and straightforward communication will lead to better engagement with the public. In short, simplify what’s going on without making your content simple.
Know Your Audience
Knowing your audience is important. If you record podcasts, for example, who are the people you want to listen to your podcast? If your audience for the podcast is a person in the general public, you’ll want the content of your podcast to be highly accessible. If your audience for the podcast is students in one of your courses, you may include more jargon than for a more general audience. Recognize that the content and discussion topics depend on your intended audience. Regardless of the form your public engagement takes, you should always be asking yourself this question: “Who is my audience?” Then produce content with that audience in mind.
Public Engagement Can Build an Invaluable Community
If you work with multiple scholars on a specific blog or podcast, you form a community around an important issue. This community and your connections are an invaluable part of your network and support system—don’t take them for granted. Make sure to express your gratitude to members of your community for their hard work on important issues and projects.
Public Scholarship is Becoming More Valued in the Discipline
Political science, like other academic disciplines, has long emphasized the importance of scholarly publications. Publications represent an intellectual contribution and help make a stronger case for your tenure. That said, public engagement is beginning to hold more value in the field. The American Political Science Association has a webpage dedicated to public engagement, a new Institute for Civically Engaged Research, and websites like the Monkey Cage and the Mischiefs of Factions continue to gain national recognition for the discipline. Publishing research articles is still important, but public engagement is becoming more valued in the field.

After attending the panel, I was struck by all the panelists’ different ideas and ways to participate in public engagement. However, one question stood out to me that any scholar should ask themselves before participating in public engagement: “What are your reasons for engaging in public scholarship?” Ultimately, any scholar should answer this question for themselves to recognize their own reasons for public engagement.

About the Author: James Steur is a Ph.D. student in political science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His research interests include political psychology, political behavior, and the role of emotions in citizen decision-making. He is a first-generation student, passionate coffee drinker, and excited to be blogging at this year’s MPSA conference. You can find James on Twitter at @JamesSteur.

Keeping It Real: Political Science and Civic Engagement

By Michael Smith of Emporia State University

Great #MPSA19 panel discussion regarding blogging, Twitter and podcasting w/@LaraMBrownPhD @NaymaQayum @JustinBullock14 @GreggRMurray and Michael Smith from @emporiastate. Happy to chair such an insightful panel discussion. pic.twitter.com/HzVztFhzJd

— Deron Schreck (@schreckphd) April 4, 2019

It was the first day of #MPSA19, and I had just participated in the best conference experience of my life. Fittingly, the topic of our roundtable was academics and civic engagement. And we certainly engaged.

My fellow panelists were each passionate about connecting political science to the world outside academia. Each of us has published our share of traditional, peer-reviewed academic research in outlets such as books and journal articles. But, we do not leave it there. Panelist Gregg R. Murray of Augusta University studies political psychology and writes for Psychology Today. Justin Bullock of Texas A&M podcasts regularly on Public Problems and Bush School Uncorked. Lara M. Brown of George Washington University served in the Clinton Administration and now writes for The Hill among other publications. Nayma Qayum of Manhattanville College studies Bangladeshi politics and blogs for the Monkey Cage. Session chair Deron T. Schreck of Moraine Valley Community College hosts numerous public forums and utilizes blogging and podcasting in his teaching. I not only blog for MPSA, I also write newspaper columns and maintain the blog for Insight Kansas. We all also speak to reporters regularly.

Audience questions centered on university and departmental expectations for hiring, tenure, and promotion. (You can read more about the audience response to the panel in this post by James Steur.) We all agreed that the academic career model is showing its age. Many universities still reward only traditional research. Tenure and promotion documents will require some adaptation in order to accommodate the newer outlets for ideas, particularly since outlets like the Monkey Cage have become serious, respected places to release preliminary research results and reach broader audiences. Of course, there is the usual resistance from the old guard, but we all agreed that modernizing hiring and promotion guidelines was an essential step to keeping political science relevant.

That is not to say we agreed on everything. Sparks flew when I disclosed that I disclose—specifically, that I acknowledge my party affiliation up-front, have attracted critics, and sometimes choose provocative titles for my work. Several panelists expressed serious concerns that professors who are perceived as party hacks or bomb-throwers compromise political science’s integrity and our discipline’s reputation for putting analysis over partisanship. These concerns are well-founded, but I countered with my own experiences, in which politicos often distrust professors who claim to be unbiased, and prefer those who disclose our partisan leanings up-front and let readers take our comments with a grain of salt. As a Democrat, I maintain great relationships with many elected Republicans in deep-red Kansas, because unlike the politically-disengaged majority, we share an appreciation for political parties themselves. I also argued that today’s students expect professors to have real-world experience with what they teach. No one would trust a technical school professor who taught “diesel mechanics theory” and never touched an engine, so why should they trust political science professors who have no real-world political experience? Most political scientists have political histories, leanings and opinions, whether we reveal them to our students and readers, or not. I maintain that, as with campaign finance, the best policy is to disclose.

Still, the argument in favor of nonpartisanship is a strong one, too, and we did not come to a consensus during our roundtable session. However, what we did do was far more important—we had a lively discussion while keeping it civil. In so doing, we role-modeled the approach extolled by colleagues John Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse: not seeking consensus, but instead, learning how to effectively handle our disagreement. We left a spirited discussion agreeing on some things, disagreeing on others, and each appreciating one another’s’ perspectives. Several of us continued into an impromptu hallway conversation lasting nearly two hours. Though nothing is yet official, we discussed the potential for a new MPSA Working Group on Civic Engagement. E-mail addresses and Twitter handles were exchanged, selfies taken, and follow-up conversations promised.

This experience was conferencing at its very best. It was a lively exchange of ideas, agreement and civil disagreement, and mutual support for colleagues at different stages of our careers. Teaching colleges and research universities, faculty and administration were all represented on our roundtable panel. Most of all, it was a sustained discussion about just what it will take to make, and keep political science relevant both on- and off-campus, in a world that continually changes faster than academia.

About the Author: Michael A. Smith is a Professor of Political Science at Emporia State University where he teaches classes on state and local politics, campaigns and elections, political philosophy, legislative politics, and nonprofit management. Read more on the MPSA blog from Smith and follow him on Twitter.

Biased Professors? Try Disclosure

By Michael A. Smith of Emporia University

Thinking Exchange

The allegation that professors are biased toward liberal, progressive, or even radical points of view has been part of American political discourse at least since the publication of William F. Buckley, Jr.’s God and Man at Yale in 1951. The allegation seems to re-emerge periodically, for example in the late 1980s and early 1990s. William J. Bennett, Secretary of Education in the Reagan Administration, was a major proponent. A spate of books followed, including Richard Kimball’s Tenured Radicals and Thomas Sowell’s The Vision of The Anointed.

We may be seeing a resurgence today. A particularly disturbing example is the “Professor Watchlist” maintained by conservative group Turning Point USA, which seeks to expose professors whose views are perceived by the group as too radical. In particular, many conservatives argue that they are not angry so much because their professors are liberal or radical, as because (according to them) conservative views are being silenced or attacked on campus. Even President Trump has gotten into the act, recently signing an executive order denying federal funding to campuses which restrict free speech. In practice, it is not clear how this is going to be implemented.

The situation today is complicated by the fact that much campus activism is now occurring among students, not faculty. Even the President himself once said that the allegations of conservatives being suppressed are “highly overblown,” though he has been “sticking to script” more recently. Furthermore, conservatives, including U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, maintain that professors are still involved in this liberal or radical assault on free speech.

What are the hard facts, here? Several recent surveys confirm that most professors do lean liberal. However, the evidence for conservatives being ostracized or targeted, is far more mixed. Studies and even a new book show that conservatives can be successful in academia, while others show that that conservative students do not change their political views when being taught by liberal professors. There is also a broad variation by region, type of college, and discipline, with liberal-arts colleges and the Northeast being the most lopsidedly liberal, while pre-medical and business programs, community colleges, and the West are much less so. One of our sister social sciences—economics—is among the least liberal of the academic disciplines. As for our discipline, political scientists are known for being ruthless de-bunkers of assumptions on both left and right.

Despite this complexity, professors are still under scrutiny from the White House, state legislators, alumni and donors, and activists. What to do? I maintain that the best policy here is the same as it is for campaign finance — disclose, disclose, disclose. When it comes to money in politics, a century of would-be reforms have only shifted the incentives on those who seek to influence politics through donations. From “soft money” given to political parties a few decades ago, to today’s “independent expenditures” and “dark money,” the cash always seems to find a way back in. Requiring full, transparent disclosure of who is giving the money and how much, is fully allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling. Congress need only pass the appropriate legislation to make it happen. Some states are doing this already.

I maintain that disclosure works in the classroom and research, too. I am a centrist Democrat teaching in deep-red Kansas in the small town of Emporia, made famous by a journalist William Allen White as an exemplar of small-town America, though voting patterns in Emporia make the town one of Kansas’ true electoral battlegrounds. I am also a department chair, a quasi-administrative role in which being a political firebrand could be a major liability. How do I survive?

I survive just fine, thank you. Kansas officials from both parties regularly accept my invitations to speak to class.

I disclose my own political views while teaching and am careful not to teach my views as fact. I reveal them as my own opinion, a window to explain my own real-world political experiences, which I use to inform my teaching. I make an effort to welcome those who wish to present other views.

For me, it is disclosure that made this all possible. I am not afraid of the critics of bias in academia. I own my values, beliefs, life experiences, and affiliations, and in so doing, I seem to have earned the respect of politicos whose views are sharply different from my own. In my experience, political actors do not trust professors who claim to be nonpartisan. They suspect (and I agree) that most of us do have political leanings, and feel far more at ease if we just reveal them up front. Claiming to be above partisan politics does not wear well with this crew.

I also maintain that politicos from both parties and I do in fact share something in common with me– an appreciation of political parties themselves. We may not all affiliate with the same party, mind you, but we do believe in the process.

Most professors are more liberal than the American public as a whole. Yet this is due in part to a self-selection bias among those who choose to be professors in the first place. Diverse views need to be welcome in academia, while those of us that have been and continue to be politically-active off campus should consider owning our own values and life experiences in the classroom. We should give our students, colleagues, and readers full disclosure so they know our perspective, and can also formulate and speak for their own points of view.

MPSA’s Top 10 Blog Posts from 2018

MPSA-Young-Perspective

As the calendar year begins to wind down, we take a look back at our most-read articles from 2018. We encourage you to take a quiet moment for another look as you may have missed an article or may simply enjoy the re-read. Please take a moment to share what you would like to see more of in the new year. Interested in seeing your work here? Send us a note with your ideas or submit an application to serve as a blogger for the 2019 MPSA conference.

What 18,000 Declassified Documents (and a Computer) Reveal About the Credibility of Signals During Crises Eric Min of Stanford University provides an overview of this year’s Robert H. Durr Award-winning research on the credibility of private and public statements during the Berlin Crisis.
The Public Expert: How Academics Can Break the Ivory Tower Stereotype #MPSA18 Chicago-blogger Alex Ellison of MENTEE provides an overview of a popular professional development session on public engagement.
Blue Wave, Red Wave; What Wave? No Wave Ahead of the U.S. midterm election, Chapman Rackaway of the University of West Georgia lobbied to end using the word “wave” to mean overwhelming success.
MPSA Roundtable – Using Experiments in Political Science A popular recap of a conference session discussing the implications of experimental research.
Do Academics Stink at Work/Life Balance? Alex Ellison of MENTEE shares lessons learned during a professional development session at the 2018 conference on finding and keeping a work-life balance.
All Male Panels Erode Citizens’ Perceptions of Democratic Legitimacy Amanda Clayton, Diana Z. O’Brien, and Jennifer M. Piscopo highlight their Sophonisba Breckinridge Award-winning research on gender-balanced decision-making bodies.
The New Political Scientists—We’re Live, We’re Nationwide, and We’re Online Michael A. Smith, Emporia State University offers a retrospective on the increased use of technology by political science scholars noted at the annual conference.
Chicago Tips and Recommendations from a Graduate Student Charmaine N. Willis offered her pre-conference tips for those visiting Chicago.
What George Washington Really Meant About Political Parties — and Why It Matters Michael A. Smith of Emporia State University takes a deep-dive on the source of America’s party system.
Blue is Black and Red is White? Affective Polarization and the Racialized Schemas of U.S. Party Coalitions Nicholas A. Valentino and Kirill Zhirkov provide an overview of their Best Paper in Political Behavior Award-winning research.

Call for #MPSA19 Conference Bloggers

chicagotheatre — Photo by Maarten van den Heuvel on Unsplash

MPSA seeks bloggers to cover the most popular panels and events at the upcoming conference in Chicago. Bloggers will be expected to research, craft and edit articles that appeal to members of our community including political science scholars, social scientists, media, and the informed public. In return, bloggers will gain an audience for new ideas, experience in digital media, and an opportunity to expand your online visibility among peers in the discipline. Conference bloggers will also be awarded a small stipend upon staff acceptance of the required number of posts.

In addition to the category requirements below, for 2019 each conference blogger is required to submit at least one post of a general nature related to a conference event/session or Chicago attraction in advance of the conference. Remaining posts must be submitted during or immediately after the conference.

We seek bloggers committed to writing about a variety of categories including research-oriented roundtables, professional development, public engagement and advocacy, teaching and learning, and work-life balance. Additionally, we seek bloggers to write from the following perspectives: graduate students, first-time attendees, experienced conference attendee, Chicago-natives, and international attendees.

Submit your application to serve as an MPSA 2019 Conference Blogger. Applications will be accepted through January 18, 2019. All applicants will receive a response from the MPSA staff during the week of January 21, 2019.

Questions? Please email Melissa Heeke, MPSA Membership and Communications Director, at heeke@mpsanet.org.

Magnify Your Voice: A Day Off for Democracy

By Betsy Sinclair of Washington University in St. Louis

“Are you frustrated that you see a need in your community that isn’t met by government or industry? Do you believe that need could be remedied through purposeful action? Will you ask your family, friends and neighbors to help initiate change? If that description fits you, join us.”

Magnify is an action network that I founded with friends to connect like-minded people to help solve civic, political, and environmental projects. We match people to projects that need help: projects where making a phone call or volunteering can help make a neighborhood better. Magnify leverages the frontier of political behavior research to make civic engagement fun, easy, and social. Magnify is a place for positive engagement and civil discourse.

Here is how Magnify works:

You choose something you care about and propose a project. We host advocacy campaigns, volunteer opportunities, and community events. Have you noticed a pothole that needs filling, a park that needs a new bench, or a local business that needs a changing station in their bathroom? Are you looking for drivers to help get voters to the polls? Is your local food pantry looking for help around Thanksgiving?
You share the project with your friends. As your friends join your project, you’ll see their names. As they take action to help, they’ll earn civic engagement points and their icons will change color.
We match your project to people who share your interests and concerns. All Magnify users have a personalized experience, where we match projects to you based upon your interests and geography.

We have been working with projects from the political science community – both directly and indirectly — by providing a forum for faculty and students to learn strategies for civic engagement and activism. We build communities, so after several hundred political science faculty signed Stanford professors Adam Bonica and Michael McFaul’s letter in the Washington Post advocating for universities to treat election day as a holiday, we provided those faculty a forum where they could take action and talk about their experiences rallying their universities to action (link: https://www.magnifyyourvoice.com/dayofffordemocracy). Project members, for example, used the group chat to discuss the language they employed when writing to university administrators. If we work together, we are better at finding solutions that work.

As political science faculty, perhaps our greatest role is that of teaching, so that we have been able to use Magnify as a tool to demonstrate the efficacy of civic engagement – we’ve been successful in making both Clayton and WUSTL more bike accessible, we’ve supported fundraising for a local school district’s food pantry, and we’re currently working to support bus riders (who need benches, shelters, and regularly-emptied trash cans) in Ferguson, MO. If you’d like to use Magnify in your classroom, we’ve prepared a set of teaching materials to illustrate how to use Magnify as a tool for experiential learning and civic engagement. We hope to channel your students’ anger into action and to help train the next generation of civic leaders.

Neighborhood, community, and a responsible civic life – this is what the Magnify community cares about. Together our voices are heard. We care a lot about your neighborhood. We know you have a good idea. It’s time to make it happen. Join us today! www.magnifyyourvoice.com

About the Author: Betsy Sinclair is a Professor of Political Science at Washington University in St Louis, 2019 MPSA Conference Program Co-Chair, and the co-founder of Magnify. You can find Sinclair and Magnify on Twitter.

MPSA Roundtable – Public Engagement: Mixing Academics and Practical Politics

Mixing Academics and Practical Politics

In this public engagement roundtable from the 2018 MPSA conference, Michelle Kukoleca Hammes of Saint Cloud State University, Derrick Carter of Valparaiso University Law School, and Jared Wesley of the University of Alberta examine “pracademics” or the intersection of practical politics with academic study and the field of political science.

Drawing from personal experiences, the panelists discuss the practice of political science in the legislative context and the separation of academics from legislation and policymaking, while examining ways the discipline could reach out to communities to integrate students and professors with real-world community needs.

Discussing strategies for bridging the gap between political science and politics, the panelists discuss the importance of linking academic subject matter with real-life issues for students and look at ways non-elected bureaucrats or practitioners can work collaboratively with academics and students to improve research, scholarship, and policy outcomes.

Listen to the roundtable on SoundCloud.

MPSA Members can log in to access a variety of recordings from highlighted MPSA conference presentations. Additional podcasts from select MPSA conference roundtables are also available.

Contributing Political Science Knowledge to our Collective Conscious

Post by Royal G. Cravens, Bowling Green University
This post originally appeared on the Wiki Education blog.

Dr. Royal G. Cravens, III is a Lecturer in the Department of Political Science at Bowling Green State University. He recently participated in our Wikipedia Fellows pilot, an opportunity for subject-matter experts to learn how to contribute to Wikipedia. Dr. Cravens is a member of the Midwest Political Science Association, one of the three associations that collaborated with us in this pilot. Here, he shares what he’ll take with him from the experience.

641px-Cravens_Fellows_Selfie — Dr. Royal G. Cravens, III

Remember that time when Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, discouraged college students from citing Wikipedia articles in their research or term papers? Admittedly, it was more than a decade ago, but the ramifications for Wikipedia in higher education continue. I was an undergraduate pursuing a degree in Political Science, a reading- and writing-intensive field. Since that time, many college professors have banned Wikipedia citations in their syllabi for the same reason Wales discouraged students from using them in the first place, concerns over reliability.

Based on this and a previous experience using Wikipedia to locate information for a research project, I was somewhat surprised and intrigued when I learned of an opportunity to work with Wiki Education in my capacity as a college professor. I was partially motivated by curiosity, but I also saw an opportunity to contribute my knowledge to our collective conscious in a new way. Now that the Wikipedia Fellows pilot is over (although I will admit my editing days are not), my reflection on this experience leads me to highlight two related points about Wikipedia. One is its capacity as a learning tool and the second is its potential to amplify marginalized voices in the academy.

To my first point, and I am late to the game in realizing this, Wikipedia is an educational tool. During this Fellowship, I learned about the myriad ways Wikipedia is being used in higher education classrooms across the country. Under the guidance of an instructor and with assistance from the Wiki Education team, students are making contributions to bodies of knowledge which shape popular understandings of both complex and mundane topics in ways traditional journal articles might not. They interact with each other and with strangers in an online community built upon shared interest in a topic.

In my experience, however, Wikipedia editors rarely stop at one topic. Instead, there appears to be a shared curiosity and appreciation for knowledge which leads editors to form massive lists of pages which they ‘watch’ or make contributions to on a regular basis. I, personally, found myself contributing information about events in history, individual biographies, and places I have lived. When information was incorrect or lacking, I felt a responsibility to edit, correct, or add what I knew – all with proper citation, of course!

The infectious and cross-disciplinary nature of editing was a reoccurring topic that I and the other Fellows discussed in our weekly conversations. To me, this is the great contribution of Wikipedia to higher education: the inspiration to remain a life-long learner in a social and political environment which seeks to undermine facts and erect barriers to higher education.

In proceeding to my second point, I feel the need to clarify something. I am not advocating the abandonment of traditional academic publications. I now realize, however, that those sources can be used to reach audiences far beyond academe. However, to quote Uncle Ben from Spider Man “with great power comes great responsibility.” The power of Wikipedia to reach a massive audience and influence popular understanding of numerous topics is still only harnessed by a relatively unrepresentative cross-section of society. (I use the preceding quote to illustrate another point. Wikipedia articles more often than not contain correct information, however, they are not as thorough as academic journals. Uncle Ben’s Wikipedia entry notes that this quote is often attributed to the character, but this is not the original source.)

This leads to my second point. During this fellowship, I learned that Wikipedia editors are not representative of the general public and that this has ramifications for the visibility of minority groups and information about them in open-access forums. One of my goals for this Fellowship was to increase the reliability of information related to LGBT politics, my own research focus being LGBT political behavior. In reflecting on this experience, it is now apparent to me that Wikipedia provides a platform to amplify minority scholarship.

In the academic age of @WomenAlsoKnow (website here), @POCAlsoKnowStuff (website here), and @LGBTscholars, it is more important than ever to recognize the contributions of those scholars (and their research agendas) whom the academy has long marginalized. I must say, however, this is not the same as #promoteyoself – a popular movement to encourage marginalized scholars to promote their own work. Although I encourage scholars to promote their own work, for the purposes of Wikipedia editing, scholars should use their knowledge and resources to cite underrepresented authors and edit/create pages related to underrepresented topics. Only then can the full power of Wikipedia be brought to bear in enhancing the voice and scholarship of underrepresented people.

It is my final assessment that Wikipedia has been underutilized by people like me – early-career scholars with perspective on minority populations and underrepresented research agendas. We could do better in making open-access information, with which the general public is more likely to interact, more representative and complete. As I previously stated, I will continue as a Wikipedia editor and hope to incorporate Wikipedia editing as a component of my future classes. I encourage those who share my curiosity and desire to magnify the voices of marginalized scholars and topics to join me.

Happy Editing!

To see the Wikipedia articles this Fellows cohort improved, click here. To learn more about how you can get involved as a Wikipedia Fellow, click here.

Image: File:MoseleyHall.jpg, Bhockey10, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Finger on the Pulse: Alive and Kicking at MPSA 2018

By Harold “Harry” Young of Austin Peay State University

MPSA-Young-Perspective
At this year’s MPSA conference, I was on a mission to uncover what participants were so serious about as they hovered over laptops and chatted in small groups. My personal interactions revealed groups generally mystified and frightened by the current political environment with some tinged with anger. Most of all, however, I was interested in what was going on in the sessions that filled the hard copy of the 524-page conference guide (yes, I know some people downloaded the app). I wanted some answers to the question “what have you done for me (the public) lately?” What one finds depends on where one looks but overall I concluded that the state of political science is strong (in academia). Therefore, if you missed the conference, here are few snapshots.

The first snapshot is about books and journals exhibited by publishers accompanied by acquisition editors. We want to publish and the publishers were there with books and journals everywhere with displays of academic classics, highly specialized topics, books on “hot” contemporary issues and the up-to-date journals. Though impressive, the question of who reads these outside of academia haunts me (and us). We must ask ourselves the question, what is the point if there is no diffusion? In the current anti-intellectualist environment, we pay a price for academic snobbery. I am encouraged, however, by Christopher Schaberg’s suggestion that publishing is multifaceted and something to live with rather than live for in Publish or Perish? Yes. Embrace It! This approach may encourage us to take steps to increase or enhance public diffusion as we move toward our next projects.

The second snapshot reflects our interest in understanding the “now” with the hope of informing the future. Again, the issue of public relevance and diffusion arise. I humbly suggest that some of the research presented will, and probably should, remain in academia. However, it is all about priming and framing (Scheufele & Tewksbury 2006). Exemplary of this was research presented by Rebekah Dowd and Adnan Rasool comparing the recent presidential elections in the U.S. (Trump v. Clinton) and France (Macron v. Le Pen) and social media messaging surrounding the campaigns. The research had all the right elements – politics, salient issues, social media, comparative, and well-done. Having extracted the data from the public domain, let us hope they can make their findings accessible to the public.

Finally, there was plenty for “us” to ponder and digest. The “now” issues I listened in on included the current U.S. President, Russia, immigration, race, new media, cultural identity, authoritarianism, balance of power (domestic and international), and the environment. While encouraging everyone to review the repository at MPSA Conference 2018, I highlight two presentations. The first is Phillipp Alexander Schroeder, University of London, who presented on one of my favorite topics – judicial review and the interaction with legislative preferences. The second is Nicholas Howard and David Alan Hughes, both of Auburn University at Montgomery, who presented on the interactions of the courts and environmental policymaking. Again, my hope is that they can make their findings accessible outside of academia.

While this year’s MPSA conference provided a platform for some of the best to share and receive feedback, there was a deep awareness of the political environment and the importance of context. While they stood by their research, several presenters noted that they must acknowledge that the current environment is so different than the next step is to re-examine their finding in light of the changes and the new political realities. That a real and ongoing challenge for our discipline which caused me to refocus my question of “why we are forced to contribute in a meaningful way” to encompass not just our understanding of the world but also society more generally.

About the Author: Harold Young is a blogger at the 2018 Midwest Political Science Association conference. He is currently an Assistant Professor at Austin Peay State University in Clarksville, Tennessee. His research focuses on Public Law and examines an American and international perspective on judicial institutional changes and decision-making. Previously, he worked as a health communications manager, a social worker and practiced law. Read more from Harold on the MPSA blog and Avnon World Series. He can be reached at youngh@apsu.edu.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Image: File:MoseleyHall.jpg, Bhockey10, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: