This MPSA roundtable session on “MPSA Roundtable: The Path to Full”, hosted by the Midwest Women’s Caucus and chaired by Tiffany Barnes of the University of Kentucky, features James Adams of University of California, Davis, Leslie Schwindt-Bayer of Rice University, and Miki Kittilson of Arizona State University, Tempe.
This panel examines the path to full professorship by facilitating a discussion of the participants’ journeys to become full professors.
Highlights from the discussion include important points in the transition between the associate and full professor levels, including the importance of career mentoring during this time, and advice on moving from the associate to full professor level. Questions discussed during the roundtable address what it means to be a full professor, what this looks like at different institutions, and what being a full professor means to each of the panelists.
Topics of discussion include:
New opportunities for longer term or higher risk projects.
This constellation should be a diverse set of faculty, staff and peers who will get students out of their comfort zones and challenge them to learn more – and more deeply – than they thought they could. Students should begin to build this network during their first year of college.
Those are some of the key takeaways from a new Elon University Poll of a nationally representative sample of more than 4,000 U.S. college graduates with bachelor’s degrees. These are points two of us plan to explore more deeply as co-authors of a forthcoming book on mentoring in college.
The Elon University Poll and the Center for Engaged Learning examined the nature and qualities of relationships that matter most for college students. The poll found that graduates who had seven to 10 significant relationships with faculty and staff were more than three times as likely to report their college experience as “very rewarding” than those with no such relationships. Similar effects were found for peer relationships in college.
The first year of college is crucial in establishing the foundation for these relationships, which will not only influence students’ time in college but a large part of the rest of their lives. In the Elon Poll, 79 percent of graduates reported meeting the peers who had the biggest impact on them during their first year of college. And 60 percent reported meeting their most influential faculty or staff mentors during that first year.
The classroom is the most common place that students say they encountered both influential faculty members and peers.
This Elon Poll builds on a rich body of research on the power of relationships with peers, faculty, advisers and other mentors, and how those relationships influence student learning, a sense of belonging and achievement.
For instance, in the landmark 1977 work “Four Critical Years,” Alexander Astin of UCLA noted that “student-faculty interaction has a stronger relationship to student satisfaction with the college experience than any other student involvement variable.” Another pioneering researcher, Vincent Tinto of Syracuse University, documented how the most effective undergraduate experiences “enable the faculty and staff to make continuing, personal contact with students.” Sociologists Daniel Chambliss and Christopher Takacs offered this sage message after their 10-year examination of students at Hamilton College: “Spend your time with good people. That’s the most important thing.”
Relationships make a big difference
Following up on a 2014 Gallup-Purdue national survey, the Elon Poll found that more than 80 percent of respondents reported their most important faculty or staff relationship formed in college was with someone who made them excited about learning, cared about them as a person and encouraged them to pursue their dreams.
Having even a very small number of meaningful relationships made a big difference. Forty-six percent of respondents with just one or two significant faculty or staff relationships rated college as “very rewarding,” as compared to just 22 percent of those with no such relationships. Similarly, 48 percent of respondents with one or two significant peer relationships rated college as “very rewarding,” as compared to 25 percent who lacked those types of connections. When it comes to relationships in college, quality matters more than quantity.
These findings make plain that the best undergraduate education – for all students at all types of institutions — is one in which students form sustained relationships with peers, faculty, staff and other mentors.
What colleges and universities do matters
Unfortunately, not all students form the kind of relationships that are key to a rewarding college experience. Indeed, the Elon Poll suggests that some who are the first in their family to attend college often don’t have as strong of a mentoring constellation as those with at least one parent who attended college.
Significantly, 15 percent of first-generation graduates reported zero influential relationships with faculty or staff while in college, as compared to only 6 percent of those with a college-educated parent. And 29 percent of graduates with a college-educated parent reported more than seven significant relationships with faculty or staff, compared to 17 percent for first-generation students.
Students have an important role in building these constellations, but so do colleges and universities.
Initiatives like Elon University’s Odyssey Scholars program for first-generation students put faculty, staff and peer mentors in place from the start of college. Odyseey Scholar director Jean Rattigan-Rohr reports an 89 percent four-year graduation rate for the two most recent groups of scholars. This rate exceeds the rate for the student body as a whole. Similarly, but at a much bigger institution, the Texas Interdisciplinary Plan (TIP) at the University of Texas at Austin provides peer mentoring and expert advising to at-risk incoming students. Thanks in part to these relationships, more TIP students have GPAs above 3.0 than their non-TIP peers.
Since contact with faculty early on is critical for all students, the Elon Poll reinforces existing scholarship that urges colleges to place their best teaching faculty in first-year classes. A study of some two dozen colleges and universities demonstrates that frequent and meaningful student-faculty interactions significantly improves student motivation and achievement.
You can find mentors in many places
The poll also found that not all of the most influential mentors are professors. Notably, one-third of our respondents identified a staff member – that is, an administrator, student life worker or support staff – rather than a professor as their most influential mentor.
Every staff person on a college campus – from gardeners and janitors to secretaries and office assistants – shapes the learning environment and many have significant contact with students. In an effort to recognize and celebrate the contributions these personnel make to students’ lives, Georgetown alumnus Febin Bellamy founded Unsung Heroes in 2016. The program should remind students to look in unexpected places for people who can make a difference in their lives.
Find your people
Establishing a network of mentors takes a sense of purpose and initiative. Granted, forming relationships with mentors and peers may come more easily to some students than others. But a constellation of mentors does not need to have dozens of people in it. Instead, a few positive relationships with peers, faculty and staff will make a powerful difference for the college experience and beyond.
To make this happen, students should make simple gestures to connect with potential mentors. Talk with a faculty member after class. Invite a professor to have coffee. Ask an advanced student in your major for advice. Small steps like these can uncover mutual interests and shared passions and, ultimately, lead to the kinds of relationships that make a big difference in college – and for a lifetime.
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.
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.
By Chad Raymond of Salve Regina University and Active Learning in Political Science
Most ALPS posts deal with the front end of teaching — the stuff that eventually turns into the student experience. Today I’m going to talk about the back end of the job: skills that are beneficial for one’s career because they have applications far beyond the classroom environment.
Here are the skills that I now wish I had acquired while in graduate school:
Writing for the Audience As I’ve mentioned occasionally in the past, the vast majority of academic writing is terrible. It is produced to be published, not to be read. Important ideas are not communicated well, if at all. For example, compare the writing of Anatol Lieven in Pakistan: A Hard Country to any journal article or multi-authored volume about that country. Or read Sarah Kendzior‘s The View From Flyover Country. These people can write well, a lot of people read what they write, and they have benefited professionally as a result.
Academics need to reach different audiences, and that requires learning how to write for those audiences. Take courses in journalistic or creative writing. Write memos. Submit op-eds to your local newspaper. Get feedback from people who write better than you do. Write a lot, even though it takes time. Use the process of writing as a tool to refine your thinking. Practice what we preach to students.
Graphic and Web Design I’ve written about this before too — messages can and often should be communicated visually. But the message is lost if the visuals are bad. I’m often shocked by the inability of faculty members to display information in a manner that is easy to understand — whether for other academics or a curious and reasonably intelligent public. Creating simple but effective charts with Excel is not that difficult. Yet training in this basic skill was not part of my graduate program — I had to learn it on my own. Others probably never bothered.
My doctoral studies began just before the Web sprang into existence. Since then, I’ve been struggling to catch up with the digital revolution. This blog is one small tangible result. Don’t be left behind like I was — learn how to build websites. The more proficient at this you become, the more of an advantage you will have.
Data Literacy Related to the above is the ability to work with data. Can you easily mine data by creating longitudinal analyses and calculating percentages? Do you know how to determine whether your data and conclusions are meaningful? I am constantly amazed by what I can learn and communicate by making those simple Excel charts. I dream about what I could do if I knew R.
Stage Presence Let’s face it: teaching is performance. As are committee meetings, admissions office recruitment events, and board meetings. Elocution and body language can make or break a conference presentation. Don’t be the person whom everyone immediately tunes out. Take a course in public speaking, acting, or musical theater.
People Management We have to interact with others as part of larger organizations, and I bet every person who reads this has encountered at least one toxic colleague in their careers. Some of us end up with managerial duties, as research team leaders, department chairs, and administrators, yet we’ve never been trained for these roles. I recently attended a workshop on how to manage difficult conversations in the office, and it was eye-opening. Find out how you can become better at working with people. Then do it.
About the Author: Chad Raymond is Chairperson, Department of Cultural, Environmental, and Global Studies at Salve Regina University and Managing Editor of http://activelearningps.com. This article was originally published on Active Learning in Political Science. Read the the original post.
They stood in place at each poster in the exhibit hall, graduate students eager to share their research with anyone willing to take the time to listen, ask questions, or possibly offer some instructive or encouraging advice.
While sometimes considered as a consolation prize by more experienced researchers, for grad students the poster sessions are an essential component of learning, a form of knowledge diffusion featuring visual experiences and personal interactions. Elements we all know are integral to effective communication in diverse forums.
The posters’ second-class status is not deserved as this the ideal forum for students entering academia. As our future, their work deserves our attention and support. Since not all exhibits are equal, however, I zeroed in on several that were both topical and presented solid research effectively.
My first stop was an exhibit on the effects of visual aids in political literacy by Breanna Wright of Stony Brook University. Political psychology is not new (Merriam, 1924) but its resurgence is evident (Political Psychology). In the current environment, identity politics is at a new high (or low if you are disapproving of it). What the News Means to Me: An Exploratory Experiment Investigating Social Identity Salience After News Exposure by Ming Boyer and Sophie Lecheler of the University of Vienna was an interesting dive into identity politics in Austria. Echoing what we experience in the U.S., their research illustrated the intersection of politics and communication or Political Communication. While the topics in the program were extensive and diverse, in my view, the demographics of the graduates were not representative (which was a challenge for the conference more generally).
Moving from those presenting posters to an Author-Meets-Critics session, I was moved to another world where scholars were more seasoned, but fortunately, still as passionate about their work.
First, Chris Sepeda-Millan of UC Berkeley discussed his first book, Latino Mass Mobilization: Immigration, Racialization, and Activism. Well-received by the critics in the session, Sepeda-Millan introduces a term worth mentioning: “racialized illegality.” This elegantly merges the controversial issues of race and legal status into a single term, capturing inequitable approaches to legal status based on race. I suggest, in fact, that racialized illegality captures the real underpinnings of the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856).
I had the opportunity to be actively involved rather than merely an observer. First, I was a panelist in a session for graduate students about interviewing for jobs at teaching schools. While each panelist was able to cast their own pearls of wisdom, what I found most surprising– and disappointing–was the guidance, or lack thereof, provided by many schools.
In one case, the student had been told he should not waste any more time teaching classes, even though he had not taught any introduction courses, a requirement of new faculty at almost any university. In another case, the student had gained no teaching experience at all!
While it is crucial that we are able to diffuse knowledge not only to political science majors but to students from any discipline, I humbly submit that discouraging a student interested in teaching, coupled with their lack of pedagogic experience is a recipe for catastrophic failure. Our students–and the discipline– deserve better.
Finally, I shared a meal with Barbara dos Santos of American University and some other students working on environmental politics. They were not only enthusiastic, but embraced the need for knowledge diffusion and its potential impact on society.
Overall, I hope my conference vignettes show that our work is important, interesting, and can meaningfully contribute to relevant spheres in society. The graduate students I met demonstrated the knowledge and skills to carry on the work. The conundrum, however, is whether we remain in our academic towers or start responding to the question, “What have you done for me lately?”
Our futures may depend on our willingness to rise to the occasion, by any means necessary.
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.
By Harold “Harry” Young of Austin Peay State University
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.
“Expectations should not always be taken as reality; because you never know when you will be disappointed.” ― Samuel P. Huntington
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
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.
[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.
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.
#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.
#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.
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!
Each year at its annual conference, MPSA records dozens of professional development panels focusing on topics most relevant to researchers and to those who teach. Audio from the roundtable discussions is available to MPSA Members online by visiting the Highlighted Presentations Section of the website and selections are also available to the public as part of MPSA’s outreach to the discipline. As 2017 comes to a close, its time to take a look back at the five most popular of these audio recordings.
MPSA Roundtable on Career: What to Do/Not Do at a Job Talk (Read the Recap) –Listen in as Elizabeth A. Bennion of Indiana University-South Bend chairs the MPSA Career Roundtable on “What to Do and What Not to Do at a Job Talk” with Mary Hallock Morris of University of Southern Indiana and David C. Wilson of University of Delaware. During the discussion, the members of the panel share their observations on how to know if the university is a good fit for you (personally and professionally) and what can make you stand out as a successful candidate.
MPSA Roundtable: Applying to Graduate School (Read the Recap) –Mackenzie H. Eason of the University of California – Los Angeles chairs this MPSA roundtable session on “Applying to Graduate School” with Coty J. Martin, West Virginia University, Joan Ricart-Huguet, Princeton University, and Jovan Milojevich, University of California-Irvine. Members of the panel discuss questions and issues related to applying to graduate programs, such as when and where to apply, and how to make yourself a more appealing and ultimately successful candidate for admission.
MPSA Roundtable: Teaching LGBTQ Politics (Read the Recap) – Susan Burgess, Ohio University-Main Campus, chairs this discussion among panelists and participants in the audience on Teaching LGBTQ Politics. Panelists include Christine Keating of Ohio State University-Main Campus, Megan Elizabeth Osterbur of Xavier University of Louisiana, Marla Brettschneider of University of New Hampshire-Main Campus, and Courtenay Daum of Colorado State University-Fort Collins. Session topics included selecting topics, readings, and pedagogical strategies pertaining to teaching LGBTQ politics classes.
MPSA Roundtable On Congressional Leadership Through The Eyes Of Randy Strahan And Barbara Sinclair (Read the Recap) – Sean M. Theriault of the University of Texas at Austin, chairs this MPSA roundtable session on “Congressional Leadership through the Eyes of Randy Strahan and Barbara Sinclair” with Gregory Koger, University of Miami, Daniel John Palazzolo, University of Richmond, Kathryn Pearson, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, David W. Rohde, Duke University and Matthew N. Green, Catholic University of America. Members of the panel remember the contributions of Randy Strahan and Barbara Sinclair to the field of political science through the sharing of memories and personal reflections and take an early look at congressional leadership in the 115th Congress.
MPSA Roundtable: Teaching Research Methods to Undergraduates (Recap Not Available) –Nathan D. Griffith of Belmont University chairs the MPSA roundtable session on “Teaching Research Methods to Undergraduates” with Binneh S. Minteh of Rutgers University-Newark, and Emily Clough of Newcastle University.
Many thanks to our panelists at the 2017 conference and congratulations to those with topics that have been shown to be among the most popular with listeners after the conference. You may share your expertise by participating as a panelist in one of MPSA’s Professional Development Roundtables at the 2018 conference in Chicago. MPSA seeks to organize a series of roundtable sessions on topics including public engagement, career development, publishing, teaching, and research methods. Learn more about the opportunity and volunteer your expertise as a panelist.
#10 
MPSA Blog 
