Skip to content

MPSA Blog

Category: Public Engagement and Advocacy

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:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...
Posted on April 12, 2018April 12, 2018 by MPSAPosted in #MPSA18, Harry Young, MPSA Annual Conference, Professional Development, Public Engagement and Advocacy, Research and Publishing, Teaching and Learning

The Public Expert: How Academics Can Break the Ivory Tower Stereotype #MPSA18

By Alex Ellison

In the professional development track at the Midwest Political Science Association Conference in Chicago, IL, there were a couple of sessions on using social media in academia and sharing research in more easy-to-digest ways with the general public. In higher education, there is often a deep divide on this topic on public engagement, with one camp saying this waters down the scholarship and diminishes the work of the scholar, and the other camp saying academics have an obligation to share their work with the public, especially in the age of increasing anti-intellectualism and university skepticism.

Quiet (3)Last year, Edward Mathew Burmila made almost as much blogging as he did from his salary as a professor at Bradley University in Illinois. His blog, Gin and Tacos, gets around 100,000 unique readers each month and he says his blogging gives him the opportunity to speak freely about his opinions, something he can’t do as a teaching professor, especially a non-tenured professor.

Burmila started blogging in undergrad in 1999, and he believes blogging is a great practice that has made him a better writer. “I get a lot out of it personally,” he said, “to know that somebody likes what I write.” Often, in academia, what is published gets downloaded and read by only a few graduate students or colleagues in the field. For Burmila, blogging allows him to be a public expert whose work can be read and appreciated by a larger audience.

Kelly E. Dittmar from the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University spends 49% of her time translating research for the public. As scholars who create knowledge, “part of our challenge is shaping the public dialogue around it,” she said. Its the role of the scholar to not only create this knowledge but to make sure the narrative is right. If scholars are not part of the public conversation around the research, the narrative can be hijacked and taken out of context. A lot of scholarship never sees “the light of the ‘public’ day,” said Dittmar, adding that while academics might get accused of not paying attention to the real world, practitioners often don’t pay attention to the research. It’s best when these two groups work together. The research has to be communicated effectively to the practitioners. To put your scholarship in the public light doesn’t mean “dumbing” it down.

The key to sharing scholarship publicly is to keep the integrity of your work but to not make the reader feel stupid.

To do this, cut the jargon. You can use the term “intersectionality” but “maybe don’t use it ten times,” said Dittmar.

Julia Azari from Marquette University believes that while teaching, research, and service are three pillars of a great professor, there are really two others that are rarely talked about: grant-writing and public profile. She said that blogging or writing in the public domain are ways to enhance these pillars. For those at R1 universities, where too much time in the public domain might count against you in tenure consideration, and where blogging isn’t necessarily considered a prestigious pursuit, Azari recommends limiting blogging time so as not to be detrimental to your career, but also offered this quick tip:

Take a lecture you think went well and write it up in 800–900 words. If it went well as a lecture, it will probably be a good blog post.

Another time-saving tactic is to take one or two succinct points from a lengthier article and turn those into a more public-friendly blog post. That way, you’re not doing a ton of extra work and you’re drawing attention to your previous research.

Today, some academic journals also have blogs, so this is a great way to write more casually in a public space but also be affiliated with a reputable journal.

Depending on your university, your tenure status, and your writing style, there is a place for you on the public-engagement spectrum. You might start by developing a relationship with your local newspaper, then start your own blog on a site like http://www.medium.com, and then become a regular contributor on Vox. The rewards may not come from your host university, but the real reward is having more people around the world read and appreciate your work.


Alex Ellison is a blogger at the 2018 Midwest Political Science Association conference. She is an independent education consultant, writer, speaker, and the Founding Director of MENTEE, a nonprofit that provides career exposure to immigrant, refugee, and low-income high school students through job shadows and mentorship. She lives in Chicago, IL. Read more from Alex Ellison on Medium. 

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...
Posted on April 7, 2018April 7, 2018 by MPSAPosted in #MPSA18, Alex Ellison, MPSA Annual Conference, Professional Development, Public Engagement and Advocacy

The 2018 MPSA Conference Is Here: What Have You Done for Me Lately?

By Harold Young of Austin Peay State University

“Expectations should not always be taken as reality; because you never know when you will be disappointed.”  ― Samuel P. Huntington

MPSA Conference 2018 is here: What have you done for me lately?

I must admit I am sometimes coy in responding to the question, “So, what do you do?” When I say I am a professor of political science and law, the response is two-fold. First, people assume I am an expert in party politics. Second, they assume I have very easy, concrete solutions to what they perceive as the problems in politics–and even the world. Invariably, I start with the standard refrain: “Well, party politics is not my area of expertise but…” I bet this is familiar to many of you. These questions about our role as political scientists outside the classrooms, conferences and our research, are not new.

Political scientists study the origin, development, and operation of political systems. They research political ideas and analyze governments, policies, political trends, and related issues. (Bureau of Labor Statistics – Occupational Outlook Handbook).

But what do these things mean in, and for, “the real world”? First, they should encourage us to reflect critically on the tertiary institutions we inhabit, considering the current domestic and international instability. Smith (2018) suggests that academia is experiencing internal decay and is under attack from without which threatens its future. Second, what do we offer the public sphere based on the knowledge we generate and the citizens we graduate? The public may well ask: “What have you done for me lately?” What we are not doing is running for elected office. The last president with an advanced degree in political science was Woodrow Wilson (1856 – 1924) who graduated from John Hopkins University with a PhD in political science. Currently, there are NO senators and only FOUR representatives at the national level with PhDs in political science. Since we cannot all run for public office, be a Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski,  Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice or have a TV show like Fareed Zakaria, how can we be conduits of our research to contribute to public discourse and the greater good of society?

It is safe to say I do not have a pat answer or the specific approach for political scientists. There are, however, many examples of those who successfully combine knowledge, teaching, research and public engagement. The two examples I choose, demonstrate the power of big ideas shared with the world and personal involvement in ways each felt they could do the most good. Samuel P. Huntington (1928 – 2009) encapsulated a rare balance of teaching, research, publication (e.g., The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late 20th Century and The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order ) and personal involvement in numerous influential public policy forums and institutions. Constantly thought of as provoking and controversial, Huntington is an icon and widely read, praised and criticized. Second, Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1931- ) is a sociologist who returned to Brazil from exile in 1968 to help establish the Brazilian Center for Analysis and Planning and serve as president of Brazil from 1995 to 2003. His domestic legacy is complemented by his contributions to political science, particularly by one of his many books, Dependency and Development in Latin America (1979). This is still required or highly recommended reading for Latin Americanists and those interested in the developing world.

In his discussion of the success of Singapore, mathematics professor, John Allen Paulos, remarks, “There is certainly no requirement for a Saporean science background, but scientifically literate government leaders who push for evidence-based policies and demonstrate a scientific outlook are needed more than glib panderers with attitude.” So, as we prepare for MPSA 2018, I suggest we ask ourselves, what role should we play in society outside the arguably ivory towers of academia? I am looking forward considering several things: (1) the state of research in present political environment; (2) the tension between political science research and politics (Aron 2011); (3) the mood of my colleagues in the current political environment; (4) interdisciplinary research and (5) the future of our calling.

The 2018 MPSA conference comes at a crucial time in the history of our nation and the world. The political divides are deep and wide with some people are looking for answers that can bridge the gaps and salve the wounds. As political scientists, what can we offer and how do we engage with our spheres of influence?

At a bare minimum, we need to have an opening line when asked, “What have you done for me lately?”

About the Author: Harold Young is 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. youngh@apsu.edu

 

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...
Posted on March 27, 2018March 27, 2018 by MPSAPosted in #MPSA18, Harry Young, MPSA Annual Conference, Public Engagement and Advocacy, Research and Publishing, Teaching and Learning, Work-Life Balance

Members of Congress respond to more than money – sometimes

By Jan Leighley, American University and Jennifer Oser, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

Does citizen activism really affect the actions of elected officials?

Despite the ubiquitous role of money in campaigns, elections and policymaking, some citizens clearly still believe in the power of protest.

In the month of December 2017 alone, an organization called The Crowd Counting Consortium “tallied 796 protests, demonstrations, strikes, marches, sit-ins and rallies,” some of them featuring thousands of people, across the country. Over the past year, the offices of many members of Congress and other elected officials have been jammed with constituents voicing their opinions on the Affordable Care Act, the immigration program called DACA, abortion and sexual harassment, among others.

But does all of this sign waving and sitting in actually influence elected officials?

As social scientists, we have long been interested in political participation and online activism. We used this knowledge to design a study that looks at whether activism changes the votes of elected officials – and whether the effect is strong enough to mitigate the power of donated money.

What we found is that citizens can make their voices heard – at least some of the time.

Activism, an American tradition

Signing petitions, contacting officials and protesting are potentially powerful because congressional elections occur only every other year, while representatives cast votes on important issues much more frequently.

The country’s founders believed deeply in the right of citizens to act on their political beliefs. They enshrined that right in the First Amendment.

Protests – from the original Tea Party in 1773 to the 1960s civil rights marches to abortion clinic activists in recent years – offer dramatic examples of citizens making their voices heard. But protests are not the only way citizens communicate with elected officials. Americans also have a rich history of attending town halls, writing letters to elected officials and signing petitions.

Despite the variety of ways citizens can express what they want their elected officials to do, most citizens believe that politicians, and especially Congress, are failing in their roles as the public’s representatives.

Cynics, as well as some scholars, suggest that taking political action may be irrelevant or simply pales in comparison to the more powerful influence of money in politics. After decades of increasing income inequality in the U.S., and growing amounts of special-interest money helping to fund election campaigns, a common finding in recent research is that elected officials respond to the opinions of the wealthy more than to those of the poor.

America’s activist tradition: An 1871 petition to Congress requesting the right to vote for women.
National Archives

But other research suggests that members of Congress respond to more than just the power of money. That research found that members of Congress respond more to voters in their districts than to nonvoters when making policy. Knowing that, it seemed reasonable to ask whether elected officials in Congress respond to political activism in the same way.

Founders’ faith affirmed

Our survey looked at four issues that were on the congressional agenda in 2012, a year for which good data is available. The issues were the repeal of the ACA, approval of the Keystone Pipeline XL, the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which would allow gays to serve openly in the armed services, and approval of the Korean Free Trade Agreement, which would remove tariffs on trade between the U.S. and South Korea. We asked survey respondents what their preferred policy was and then compared that to votes their members of Congress cast.

On two of these issues, we found that elected leaders’ choices on roll call votes aligned better with voters in their districts compared to nonvoters. Those issues were the ACA and Keystone Pipeline.

For the ACA, activists and donors, especially activists and donors of the same party as their representative, also enjoyed greater similarity with their representatives than non-activists and non-donors.

For the Keystone Pipeline, donors were also better represented than non-donors.

So – especially for the ACA – activists were better represented by their elected officials than non-activists.

Activism pays on high-profile issues

These striking findings led us to another question: Was the power of activism strong enough to counter the influence of money?

Among voters who are not politically active in additional ways, we found that those who have the highest income are better represented than those with the least income. But activism changes this: When the poor become politically active in addition to voting, they are represented about the same as the wealthy.

This effect held true only for the ACA, not for the other issues we studied.

We believe that the effectiveness of activism directed toward House members is likely restricted to high-profile issues that are well-covered by the media, where partisan positions are strong and well-established and the issue itself is highly contentious to the public. In these circumstances, activist citizens can potentially have a stronger influence than the wealthy over the policies Congress produces.

Our findings lead us to two more observations.

First, activism may be more effective in competitive congressional districts, where elections are often won by small margins.

Voter turnout in these competitive districts is a common topic of discussion and it is often used as a political strategy to win the election. Political engagement beyond Election Day is less discussed, yet perhaps just as important.

Second, in the House of Representatives, where many claim “all politics is local,” we expected to find that members are more responsive to citizen activism on a wider set of issues than the ACA. Perhaps this is true in state legislatures and city councils, where elected officials have smaller and often more homogeneous districts to represent, and where issues may not be so partisan.

The ConversationIn any case, the founders’ faith in the power of citizen activism has been borne out, at least partially. Elected officials do respond to citizens who do more than vote — and they also respond to those activists in a way that might well counter the advantages of the wealthy in American politics.

Jan Leighley, Professor, Department of Government, American University and Jennifer Oser, Senior Lecturer, Department of Politics and Government, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

 

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...
Posted on February 12, 2018 by MPSAPosted in Public Engagement and Advocacy, Research and Publishing

Recap of #MPSAchat with COSSA’s Julia Milton

MPSA_COSSA-Twitter-Chat

This month’s MPSA Twitter Chat featured a conversation with the Consortium of Social Science Association (COSSA)’s Assistant Director for Public Affairs/Government Relations Associate Julia Milton on public engagement and advocacy including prepping for Congressional meetings and best practices for communicating with policymakers.

Many thanks to COSSA for co-hosting this month’s Twitter Chat!

Travel grants/scholarships to attend COSSA’s Science Policy Conference and Social Science Advocacy Day are available through several COSSA-member associations. For more information and to apply for a grant from MPSA, visit: mpsanet.org/Advocacy/Travel-Grant (Application deadline: January 26)

//storify.com/MPSAnet/january-23-2018-twitter-chat/embed?border=false&template=slideshow[View the story “Recap of #MPSAchat with COSSA’s Julia Milton” on Storify]

 

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...
Posted on January 25, 2018January 24, 2018 by MPSAPosted in #MPSAchat, Public Engagement and Advocacy

New ways scientists can help put science back into popular culture

File 20180116 53324 11262fb.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Science is one thread of culture – and entertainment, including graphic books, can reflect that.
‘The Dialogues,’ by Clifford V. Johnson (MIT Press 2017), CC BY-ND

Clifford Johnson, University of Southern California – Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

How often do you, outside the requirements of an assignment, ponder things like the workings of a distant star, the innards of your phone camera, or the number and layout of petals on a flower? Maybe a little bit, maybe never. Too often, people regard science as sitting outside the general culture: A specialized, difficult topic carried out by somewhat strange people with arcane talents. It’s somehow not for them.

But really science is part of the wonderful tapestry of human culture, intertwined with things like art, music, theater, film and even religion. These elements of our culture help us understand and celebrate our place in the universe, navigate it and be in dialogue with it and each other. Everyone should be able to engage freely in whichever parts of the general culture they choose, from going to a show or humming a tune to talking about a new movie over dinner.

Science, though, gets portrayed as opposite to art, intuition and mystery, as though knowing in detail how that flower works somehow undermines its beauty. As a practicing physicist, I disagree. Science can enhance our appreciation of the world around us. It should be part of our general culture, accessible to all. Those “special talents” required in order to engage with and even contribute to science are present in all of us.

So how do we bring about a change? I think using the tools of the general culture to integrate science with everything else in our lives can be a big part of the solution.

Science in popular entertainment

For example, in addition to being a professor, I work as a science advisor for various forms of entertainment, from blockbuster movies like the recent “Thor: Ragnarok,” or last spring’s 10-hour TV dramatization of the life and work of Albert Einstein (“Genius,” on National Geographic), to the bestselling novel “Dark Matter,” by Blake Crouch. People spend a lot of time consuming entertainment simply because they love stories like these, so it makes sense to put some science in there.

Science can actually help make storytelling more entertaining, engaging and fun – as I explain to entertainment professionals every chance I get. From their perspective, they get potentially bigger audiences. But good stories, enhanced by science, also spark valuable conversations about the subject that continue beyond the movie theater.

Science can be one of the topics woven into the entertainment we consume – via stories, settings and characters.
ABC Television

Nonprofit organizations have been working hard on this mission. The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation helps fund and develop films with science content – “The Man Who Knew Infinity” (2015) and “Robot & Frank” (2012) are two examples. (The Sloan Foundation is also a funding partner of The Conversation US.)

The National Academy of Sciences set up the Science & Entertainment Exchange to help connect people from the entertainment industry to scientists. The idea is that such experts can provide Hollywood with engaging details and help with more accurate portrayals of scientists that can enhance the narratives they tell. Many of the popular Marvel movies – including “Thor” (2011), “Ant-Man” (2015) and the upcoming “Avengers: Infinity War” – have had their content strengthened in this way.

Encouragingly, a recent Pew Research Center survey in the U.S. showed that entertainment with science or related content is watched by people across “all demographic, educational and political groups,” and that overall they report positive impressions of the science ideas and scenarios contained in them.

Science in nonfiction books

This kind of work is not to every scientist’s taste. Some may instead prefer engagement projects that allow them more control of the scientific content than can be had when working on such large projects in the entertainment industry. Often, they instead work on nonfiction science books for the general reader. Here, I think we also need a change.

The typical expert-voiced monologues that scientists write are a wonderful component of the engagement effort, but the form is limited. Such books are largely read by people already predisposed to pick up a science book, or who are open to the authoritative academic’s voice telling them how to think. There are plenty of people who can engage with science but who find those kinds of books a sometimes unwelcome reminder of the classroom.

Following from my belief that science is for everyone, I suggest that publishers need to work with scientists to expand the kinds of books on offer, assured that there is an audience for them. This is currently difficult because publishing companies are risk averse: Something truly original in form likely will have trouble getting past the book proposal stage.

Like an overheard conversation, the author’s graphic novel explores big scientific questions about life and death.
‘The Dialogues,’ by Clifford V. Johnson, CC BY-ND

Progress is possible, however. Many years ago I realized it is hard to find books on the nonfiction science shelf that let readers see themselves as part of the conversation about science. So I envisioned an entire book of conversations about science taking place between ordinary people. While “eavesdropping” on those conversations, readers learn some science ideas, and are implicitly invited to have conversations of their own. It’s a resurrection of the dialogue form, known to the ancient Greeks, and to Galileo, as a device for exchanging ideas, but with contemporary settings: cafes, restaurants, trains and so on.

I decided it would be engaging for the reader to actually see who’s having those conversations, and where, instead of describing them in words. This led me to realize that I was contemplating a powerful form of visual storytelling: Graphic novels for adults have matured and exploded in popularity in recent years. Spiegelman’s “Maus: A Survivor’s Tale,” Satrapi’s “Persepolis” and Bechdel’s “Fun Home” are just three well-known examples.

But the storytelling tools of the graphic book have been little used in the quest to convey nonfiction science ideas to a general adult audience. The vast majority of contemporary graphic books with a science focus are presented instead as “explainer/adventure comics” for younger audiences. This is an important genre, but graphic books about science should not be limited to that.

And while there are several excellent graphic books for adults that include science, they typically focus instead on the lives of famous scientists, with discussion of the science itself as a secondary goal. Some excellent recent examples that balance the two aspects well include Ottaviani and Myrick’s “Feynman,” Padua’s “The Thrilling Adventures of Lovelace and Babbage,” and Doxiadis and Papadimitriou’s “Logicomix.” The scarcity of science-focused non-biographical graphic books for adults is especially true in my field of physics. So I decided that here was an opportunity to broaden the kinds of nonfiction science book available to engage the public.

Clifford Johnson at his drafting table.
Clifford V. Johnson, CC BY-ND

So over six years I taught myself the requisite artistic and other production techniques, and studied the language and craft of graphic narratives. I wrote and drew “The Dialogues: Conversations About the Nature of the Universe” as proof of concept: A new kind of nonfiction science book that can inspire more people to engage in their own conversations about science, and celebrate a spirit of plurality in everyday science participation.

What’s at stake

Science increasingly pervades many aspects of our lives. If people succumb to the typical view that science is difficult and should be left to experts and nerds, the most important decisions about all of our lives will be made by just a few people: from the quality of the water we drink, our medical treatments, energy sources, through to action on climate change. That is not a democratic situation. Moreover, it makes it easier for a powerful few to sideline or misrepresent important ideas and lessons about our world that come through scientific research.

The ConversationTo push back against that scenario, it’s important for scientists to try to engage the public with science. In a changing world, it’s important to keep looking for new ways to do that.

Clifford Johnson, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southern California – Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

 

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...
Posted on January 18, 2018January 18, 2018 by MPSAPosted in Public Engagement and Advocacy, Research and Publishing

Faculty Advantage: Using Wikipedia to Teach Controversial Topics

By Mark K. Cassell of Kent State University Wiki_Education_Foundation_logo.svg

It’s a problem nearly everyone who teaches political science confronts at one time or another: how to effectively teach a controversial topic. Topics like same-sex marriage or gun control are charged with emotion. Students arrive with entrenched beliefs that undermine efforts to foster critical thinking skills. It was a challenge I faced when I put together an upper-division course on the politics of inequality: creating a space where students felt comfortable critically examining the political causes and consequences of inequality without things degenerating into a brawl.

The spring before I taught the course I attended a workshop at the annual Midwest Political Science Association meeting, on teaching with Wikipedia. Like other faculty, I was skeptical of using the online encyclopedia in the classroom preferring (and requiring) students to draw on more academic sources for their assignments. But the workshop wasn’t about Wikipedia as a scholarly source. Instead, the workshop described: 1) how a student could research and author their own Wikipedia contribution; 2) the pedagogical benefits from such an assignment; and 3) the resources available to faculty who want to include the Wikipedia writing assignment into their classes. In this blogpost, I describe how I incorporated the assignment and I summarize some results from the course.

The Progression of the Wikipedia Assignment

I divided the Wikipedia assignment into a series of short tasks and quick “how-to” lectures integrated throughout the course. Class time was set aside to introduce students to Wikipedia’s content, rules and norms, and, most importantly, the technical knowledge needed to complete the assignment. The first two weeks were dedicated to introducing Wikipedia editing techniques and what makes a good or bad article. Students registered an account with Wikipedia, practiced using the Talk Pages (where you can comment on a page) and completed an online training course.

Once students were familiar with the technical aspects of Wikipedia, attention focused on selecting a topic. In addition to one-on-one meetings, I found it helpful to spend class time brainstorming ideas, demonstrating what a “stub[1] ” is, and exploring how one might search for a topic. In the third week, to practice their editing techniques, students were required to add one or two sentences to an existing Wikipedia article backed up with a citation to an appropriate source.

By the sixth week, students posted a first draft of their article in their “Sandbox,” a space to experiment with different versions of an edit. Drafts consisted of three to four paragraphs and followed the format of a Wikipedia article. Once posted, each student was required to provide feedback on two other student drafts in the Talk Pages linked to the Sandbox pages. Students incorporated peer reviews and my comments into rewrites of their draft articles. By the eighth week of class, drafts were moved from the sandbox to Wikipedia’s main website. Once on the main website, students conducted another round of peer reviews. During the final weeks of the semester, students revised their Wikipedia contribution and presented their contribution to the class.

The Resources Available to Faculty and Our Students

The Wiki Education Foundation provided two resources that proved invaluable: first, an online assignment management Dashboard. Once they were registered with Wikipedia, students signed on to a private course Dashboard which enables the instructor to see whether students complete the online training and tasks. The Dashboard also facilitates the peer review system by enabling students to click another student’s edits. The Dashboard helped track of the progress of each student. A second resource offered by the Wiki Education Foundation was the assistance of an experienced Wikipedia Content Expert who works for the Wiki Education Foundation. The assistant provided technical support, monitored students’ Wikipedia contributions, and answered students’ questions. Knowing someone was there with technical expertise increased the students’ confidence they could complete the project.

Given the topics covered in this class – racial and gender inequality, organized labor, minimum wage – it is not surprising the class generated heated and intense discussions. However, the Wikipedia assignment mediated several challenges that typically occur when teaching about controversial topics.

Being required to comment on the draft edits of others in a semi-private way reduced some of the anxiety that comes from talking about a controversial issue publicly in class. By semi-private, I mean that although anyone could view a peer’s feedback, comments were written on Talk Pages connected to a Sand Box and were viewed primarily by the commenter and the author. Comments were made electronically without seeing the reaction from the full class or even from the student author. Wikipedia is built on peer reviews and the edits of others. Seeing and participating in the process first-hand raised the class comfort level and helped foster a peer review culture in class. Peer reviews also enabled students to see the progress (or lack of progress) of others – that also helped break down barriers. One student acknowledged that she was (pleasantly) surprised to see how much another student was struggling with the same technical issues she was.

Pedagogical Benefits

The power relationship between student and instructor can also hamper learning; students (and some faculty) are reluctant to challenge the “teacher as the disseminator of knowledge” metaphor. The Wikipedia assignment disrupted that metaphor in several ways. First off, it was clear at the outset that I, the instructor, was not going to be the disseminator of knowledge when it came to editing Wikipedia. Students understood early on I had less experience editing websites than they did. Working with students one-on-one fostered a sense of mutual learning and teaching.

Second, when working on a typical research paper, students understand that the primary audience is the instructor. This can easily reinforce the power relationship between student and faculty that hampers learning. In the case of the Wikipedia assignment, the audience is the instructor, the class, and the world. Students very much understood they were writing for others – their parents, their friends, and the public. Three-quarters of the class stated that they shared their Wikipedia contribution with others outside of class including friends, family and, in one case, “as many people as I could.”

A final challenge with teaching controversial topics is helping students understand stereotypes. Although most students felt strongly about inequality – whether it was a public or private problem, for example – Wikipedia’s policies prohibited students from simply expressing their opinions. And Wikipedia’s policies (and notably not the instructor’s) forced students to take into account the views and perspectives of others. This was one of the most difficult challenges for students. Wikipedia’s automatic editors, classroom peers and external editors were quick to edit students who simply wrote their opinions, used stereotypes or made unsubstantiated claims. Responding to editors’ concerns forced students to confront their assumptions and biases which, in turn, led to healthy class discussions.

When I was first considered incorporating a Wikipedia assignment into my course I expected a learning curve. What I did not anticipate is how the assignment made discussions and learning about inequality easier. The assignment reduced anxieties often caused by class peer relations. It also provided a vehicle to challenge traditional student-instructor power relations that can often get in the way of learning. And finally, Wikipedia’s rigid structure and format often forced students to confront the assumptions that create our perceptions of what is normal and what is the other.

About the Author: Mark K. Cassell is Professor of Political Science at Kent State University where he teaches courses in public policy and administration, comparative public policy, and urban politics. His article “When the World Helps Teach Your Class: Using Wikipedia to Teach Controversial Issues” will appear in a forthcoming issue of PS: Political Science & Politics.

[1] A stub is a short article in Wikipedia in need of expansion. Stubs are often good places to start and there are lists of stubs in Wikipedia by topic.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...
Posted on January 9, 2018February 13, 2018 by MPSAPosted in Public Engagement and Advocacy, Research and Publishing, Teaching and Learning

MPSA’s Top 10 Blog Posts from 2017

There is no doubt that 2017 was a memorable year in political science.  As the year comes to a close, it’s time to take a look back at our the most-read blog posts from the past twelve months.

Alone and Working: Making the Transition to ABD#10 Alone and Working: Making the Transition to ABD 
Harold Young and Adnan Rasool share lessons from their ABD experience.

#9 What Makes Citizens Support Gender Quotas?
Tiffany D. Barnes and Abby Córdova highlight their Sophonisba Breckinridge Award-winning research on citizen support of gender quotas in Latin America in this blog post.

#8 MPSA Career Roundtable on What to Do/Not Do at a Job Talk (audio)
Elizabeth A. Bennion, Mary Hallock Morris, and David C. Wilson share tips on navigating the early stages of the interview process during this roundtable panel.

#7 This Is the Best Time Ever to Study Political Science
Tom Pepinsky makes note of ten reasons that 2017 is the perfect time to study political science.

MPSA Roundtable: What to Do (and What Not to Do) at a Job Talk

#6 I’m Not a Disgrace, I’m Just Wrong
Jeffrey L. Bernstein shares his experience with a detractor at a community speech and offers tips for navigating politically-sensitive conversations in the classroom.

#5 Polling for the 2016 Presidential Election: What Went Wrong?
Michael A. Smith reviews changes in polling and the electorate that affected the 2016 presidential election.

#4 Anti-Identity Movements in Latin America: Anti-chavismo, Anti-fujimorismo, and Anti-uribismo in Comparative Perspective
Jennifer Cyr and Carlos Meléndez highlight their Kellogg/Notre Dame Award-winning research on anti-identify movements in Latin America in this blog post.

#3 Election 2016: Did New Voting Laws Tip the Balance?
Michael A. Smith reveals the impact of new voting laws in this blog post from April.

#2 Politics and Sunburn: Snapshot of the U.S. from Belize
Harold Young shares a tale of Belizean attitudes toward Americans that he experienced during a Summer 2017 trip to Belize.

#1 Chicago’s “Must See” Locations for Political Scientists
Chicago-area political scientists share their favorite political, historical, and architectural attractions in advance of the 2017 MPSA conference.

What was your favorite post of the year? What would you like to see more of in 2018? MPSA seeks bloggers for the upcoming conference (application deadline is January 5) and year-round; we would love to highlight your post in next year’s roundup!

 

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...
Posted on December 19, 2017 by MPSAPosted in #MPSA17, Adnan Rasool, Election 2016, Gender and Politics, Grad Life, Harry Young, Michael A. Smith, MPSA Annual Conference, MPSA Awards, Public Engagement and Advocacy, Teaching and Learning, Uncategorized

Call for #MPSA18 Conference Bloggers

The MPSA office will be closed Thursday, November 23 and Friday, November 24in observance of Labor Day. (2)

MPSA seeks bloggers (and vloggers) to cover the most popular panels and events at the upcoming conference in Chicago. Just as the MPSA conference concentrates on the best thinking in the discipline, informed by theory, research and practical application, we expect our bloggers to do the same. You will gain an audience for your ideas, experience in digital media and an opportunity to expand your online visibility among peers in the discipline.  You 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. Conference bloggers and vloggers will also be awarded a small stipend upon staff acceptance of the required number of posts.

We ask that our conference bloggers submit well-written original content (maximum 1000 words if a blog post or 3 minutes maximum if video) that includes complete references to specific concepts and statistics. We also ask that any self-promotion remains within the bounds of the brief author bio. When a post is approved for the blog, it may be lightly edited and returned to the author for final approval. MPSA reserves the right to make minor grammatical and punctuation edits for style without author approval. MPSA staff is responsible for posting all content to the blog.

In addition to the category requirements below, for 2018 each conference blogger or vlogger 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.

Categories for 2018 MPSA Conference Bloggers and Vloggers

  1. Graduate Student – Two posts from the perspective of a graduate student.
  2. First Timer – Two posts from the perspective of a first-time attendee.
  3. Chicago-native – Two posts from the perspective of a Chicago native.
  4. Experienced Conference Attendee – Two posts from the perspective of someone who has attended 10+ MPSA conferences including historical perspective.
  5. International Attendee – Two posts from the perspective of an international attendee.
  6. Research-Orientated Roundtables – Two posts about research-oriented roundtables, including Author-Meets-Critics sessions, that you attend.
  7. Professional Development – Two posts about career development sessions you attend.
  8. Public Engagement Roundtables – Two posts about advocacy-related sessions you attend.
  9. Mentoring – Two posts about mentoring panels/roundtables you attend.
  10. Teaching Panels and Roundtables – One post about the Wikipedia roundtable and one post about another teaching and learning panel you attend.
  11. Work-Life Balance – One post about a work-life balance session you attend at the conference and one post with work-life balance related tips you learned at this conference (or regularly apply during academic conferences).
  12. Networking Events – One post about a networking event you attend at the conference and one post with networking strategies to apply in advance of the conference.
  13. Subfield Sessions – Two posts on lightning talks or poster sessions you attended.
  14. Pitch an Idea – We’re open to ideas!

Submit your application to serve as a MPSA 2018 Conference Blogger. Applications will be accepted through January 5, 2018. All applicants will receive a response from the MPSA staff during the week of January 15, 2018. Questions? Please email Melissa Heeke, MPSA Membership and Communications Director, at heeke@mpsanet.org.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...
Posted on November 21, 2017November 20, 2017 by MPSAPosted in #MPSA18, Environmental Politics and Policy, Gender and Politics, Grad Life, Mass Media and Political Communication, MPSA Annual Conference, Professional Development, Public Engagement and Advocacy, Research and Publishing, Teaching and Learning, Work-Life Balance

MPSA Roundtable on Public Engagement: Communicating and Promoting Your Research

MPSA Roundtable on Public Engagement

This MPSA roundtable session on “Public Engagement: Communicating and Promoting Your Research”, organized by Kathleeen Searles of Louisiana State University and Women Also Know Stuff and chaired by Julia Azari of Marquette University, features Lilly Goren of Carroll University and Jennifer M. Piscopo of Occidental College.

The panel examines strategies for the promotion of research and its communication and dissemination through public engagement.

Topics discussed include:

  • The importance of having an “elevator pitch” ready on the importance of public engagement and promoting the work of other scholars.
  • How to get involved with public engagement, including blogging, tweeting, publishing opinion pieces and fielding media questions.
  • The importance of being willing to discuss topics with the media that fall within your field of study, but are not necessarily your personal areas of expertise.
  • Sharing media interview opportunities with colleagues, especially those who are female, minority, or junior faculty members, when you don’t have time to speak to the media, or the subject matter is too far outside of your comfort zone.

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.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...
Posted on October 10, 2017 by MPSAPosted in #MPSA17, MPSA Podcasts, Public Engagement and Advocacy, Selected Presentations

Posts navigation

Older posts
Newer posts

Recent Posts

  • Is the Preference for Chaos a Rational Decision?
  • Govern the Ungoverned: How State Presence Leads to Civil Conflict
  • Teaching Tactics: A Simple Hack for Maintaining Personal Connections to Students
  • Adjusting/Adapting Assignments for Flexibility and Engagement in Online Instruction
  • Measuring the Quality of Management of Federal Agencies
The views and opinions expressed on this blog are solely those of the original authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Midwest Political Science Association, MPSA staff, and/or other site contributors.

#MPSA16 #MPSA17 #MPSA18 #MPSA19 #MPSAchat Adnan Rasool Authors Charmaine N. Willis Election 2016 Election 2018 Gender and Politics Grad Life Harry Young James Steur Mass Media and Political Communication Member Profiles Michael A. Smith MPSA Annual Conference MPSA Awards MPSA Blog MPSA Member Interviews MPSA Podcasts Professional Development Public Engagement and Advocacy Research and Publishing Resources for First-Time Attendees Selected Presentations Teaching and Learning Uncategorized Work-Life Balance

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Follow Blog via RSS

  • RSS - Posts

Follow MPSA on Twitter

My Tweets

About MPSA

The Midwest Political Science Association (MPSA) was founded in 1939 and is dedicated to the advancement of scholarship in all areas of political science. The purposes of the MPSA are to promote the professional study and teaching of political science, to facilitate communications between those engaged in such study, and to develop standards for and encourage research in theoretical and practical political problems. As such, MPSA is a nonpartisan association. It does not support political parties or candidates.
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
Follow MPSA Blog on WordPress.com
The views and opinions expressed on this blog are solely those of the original authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Midwest Political Science Association, MPSA staff, and/or other site contributors.

Contact MPSA

Midwest Political Science Association
885 S. College Mall Rd., #382
Bloomington, IN 47401
Phone: (812) 558 – 0588
Fax: (812) 335 – 1510

Blog at WordPress.com.
  • Follow Following
    • MPSA Blog
    • Join 80 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • MPSA Blog
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: