Political Science Educator: volume 29, issue 2
Reviews
By Elizabeth A. Bennion (ebennion@iu.edu)
Philip N. Cohen’s monograph Citizen Scholar: Public Engagement for Social Scientists is both a reflective provocation and a practical guide for academics who want their work to matter beyond campus gates. Cohen opens by noting that scholars face personal and institutional imperatives to make our work engaging and influential and to connect with communities beyond our disciplines and institutions—not merely to broadcast findings or chase readers, but to align professional scholarship with our obligations as citizens (Cohen 2025, 1–5). He frames the promise of a reciprocal relationship between scholarship and citizenship: Good scholarship contributes to good citizenship and vice versa (Cohen 2025, 5).
Cohen situates that imperative in a stark political context: Many citizens experience modern life as livable despite—rather than because of—expert institutions, and intellectuals are often met with suspicion or derision (Cohen 2025, 1–7). He rebuts the caricature of “ivory‑tower scolds” who denigrate colleagues perceived as “too engaged” or “too driven by social purpose,” and he reminds us that social improvement has long been part of social science’s purpose—and pursuing it need not undermine rigor when work is open, testable, and accountable (Cohen 2025, 4).
As a teacher‑scholar and civic educator, the claim resonates with me. For years, I have argued that political science classrooms are training grounds for democratic skills—civil discourse, disagreement, de‑escalation, and digital literacy—not merely arenas for memorizing facts (Bennion 2024b; Bennion 2025a; Bennion 2025b). My work offered practical norms and scaffolds, while Cohen’s book challenges us to think more deeply about how our scholarly identities and civic commitments interlock.
Cohen insists that we not give up our citizenship when we become scholars, nor discard our scholarly perspective when we act as citizens. The challenge is integration without compromising scientific standards. He suggests designing trustworthy, open scholarship and communicating responsibly in public—including the messy realities of social media, news media, and activist spaces (Cohen 2025, chs. 3–7). I embrace much of this, but not all of it. My public engagement centers on nonpartisan democratic integrity—for example, opposing partisan gerrymandering and inaccurate voter purges—because those positions are grounded in political equality and the health of representative democracy, not preferences over contested social or economic policies (Bennion 2024b; Bennion 2025b).
Equally important, I distinguish normative commitments from empirical findings. My civic values (e.g., democratic inclusion) are explicit. But empirical claims must be falsifiable and revised when evidence points elsewhere. I prefer randomized field experiments and transparent designs precisely because they help keep commitments tethered to reality (Bennion 2024a). That ethos animates the evidence‑based approaches I’ve advocated in The Political Science Educator—scaffolding discussion norms, crisis prevention, and democracy literacy—and it aligns with Cohen’s call for open, reflexive, reproducible scholarship (Bennion 2025a; Bennion 2024a; Cohen 2025, chs. 3–4).
One of the book’s most practical contributions—the “pentagulate” strategy— links peer review, open scholarship, news and media contact, social media, and a robust website as mutually reinforcing anchor points for credible public work. Rather than a one-size-fits-all, the design offers a flexible scaffold scholars can adapt to their mission and risk tolerance. For political science educators, the peer-review and open-scholarship components are indispensable: sharing data, code, and replication materials invites transparent scrutiny and public verification (Cohen 2025, ch. 3; Bennion 2022). I have written about how the skills required for teaching college students translate well to serving as a media commentator (Bennion 2022). Cohen builds on this idea with clear, actionable advice: treat reporters with respect, focus on education rather than self-promotion, prepare two or three concise talking points and repeat them consistently, and cultivate relationships with journalists over time. These recommendations, like much of Cohen’s guidance throughout the book, are practical steps for any scholar to strengthen their public engagement without sacrificing scholarly integrity.
Social media remains the most contested anchor. Cohen documents both its reach and its risks, including his high-profile lawsuit against President Trump for blocking him on Twitter—a vivid example of the stakes of public discourse for scholars today (Cohen 2025, 147–213). He also explores how scholars might separate speech modes—reserving formal claims for peer-review venues while using other channels for civic discussion—without erasing scholarly identity. As he argues: “If we only have one identity across our various platforms and modes of communication then you can’t separate them… So the alternative to speaking out ‘as a scholar’ is silence, which is not acceptable for a citizen” (Cohen 2025, 177). While I do not fully agree that silence is always unacceptable—many scholars will choose safety—I appreciate Cohen’s point that rigid dichotomies are neither realistic nor helpful.
Cohen illustrates this by contrasting stereotypical distinctions between activists and scholars with Cohen’s proposed citizen-scholar approach (see Table 61, p. 211). Rather than merging roles completely or insisting on rigid separation, Cohen suggests a model that acknowledges the overlap and seeks balance. Activists aim for social change; scholars aim for knowledge and understanding; citizen scholars pursue both—sometimes in different projects, but often in ways that intersect across a career. Audiences also overlap. While activists target the public and policymakers and scholars write for academics and students, citizen scholars recognize that work for one audience will be read by others. Standards of evidence differ—”flexible and pragmatic” for activism, “rigorous and uncompromising” for scholarship—but Cohen argues that citizen scholars can embrace this tension, making both roles productive without sacrificing integrity (p. 211). Similarly, positionality need not swing between the activist’s partiality and the scholar’s claim of universality; instead, citizen scholars consider diverse perspectives, especially those of the vulnerable. Finally, Cohen reminds us personal objectives—improving society and building a successful scholarly career—are not mutually exclusive. We are one person with one life, and fulfillment often depends on integrating these aims rather than keeping them in silos.
To be an effective citizen scholar, trust‑building is necessary. Cohen’s principles—openness, honesty, humility, care, and clarity about one’s role and limitations—are vital (Cohen 2025, ch. 1). I would add: Such principles are difficult to put into practice in today’s political—and higher education—context. In Indiana and elsewhere, legislative and administrative mechanisms (e.g., classroom content bans, “intellectual diversity” mandates, public posting of syllabi, complaint hotlines, post‑tenure reviews, and trustee interventions) have escalated pressures that magnify the risks Cohen acknowledges (Bennion 2023; Charron 2025; Wilson 2025; PEN America 2025).
Empirical evidence confirms what many of us feel. A national study by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC), the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), and the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) found that more than half of faculty report self-censoring in speech and writing; many worry about online harassment or professional repercussions when expressing views (Quinn 2025; AAC&U, AAUP, and NORC 2025). The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) Faculty Survey similarly reports that 35 percent of faculty toned down writing to avoid controversy, 27 percent felt unable to speak freely, and 14 percent experienced or feared discipline for teaching or research speech (Honeycutt 2024). In comparative perspective, Pippa Norris synthesizes evidence showing external legal constraints and internal cultural pressures jointly encourage self‑censorship and weaken viewpoint diversity in higher education in the U.S. and globally (Norris 2025).
These findings help explain why fewer professors may embrace the citizen‑scholar identity than in prior decades—even as others, like Cohen, are spurred on by the perception that democracy is under attack (Cohen 2025; Norris 2025). For some, the risks of public work—distraction, online hostility, reputational damage, and the psychological toll of being targeted (often disproportionately borne by women and scholars of color)—feel prohibitive (Quinn 2025). For others, those risks underscore the urgency of speaking clearly about democratic norms and modeling how scholarship can support public reason without succumbing to propaganda (Cohen 2025, ch. 7).
I agree with Cohen that withholding scholarly voices from the public square can be an abdication of responsibility; scholars should engage publicly—but with transparent methods, open materials, and clear boundaries between normative claims and empirical results (Cohen 2025, chs. 3-4). Conversely, I caution that scholars in contested states face compounded risks that call for strategic engagement, like partnering with local civic institutions, using public scholarship formats that encourage cross‑partisan learning, and building protective networks for scholars likely to be targeted (Bennion 2023; Wilson 2025; Boswell, Chinn, and Charles 2024). For me, I speak publicly on nonpartisan democratic integrity while letting empirical work arbitrate contested policy claims (Bennion 2024; Bennion 2025b).
How can civic educators practice such skills while helping students develop the skills they need to become engaged citizens and citizen scholars? I have shared ideas in this newsletter previously:
- norms‑first civil discourse that establishes shared rules, roles, and reflective listening exercises that make disagreement productive (Bennion 2024);
- de‑escalation scaffolds that trains faculty and students to defuse tense interactions before they spiral; pair evidence‑based techniques with campus resources (Bennion 2025a);
- democracy literacy that uses Gen‑Z attitudes data to design assignments that interrogate institutional reforms, free speech norms, and political tolerance (Bennion 2025b);
- open scholarship habits that pre‑registers experiments when feasible, share data and prompts, and discuss limitations openly to build trust and method literacy (Bennion 2024a; Cohen 2025, chs. 3-4);
- media partnerships that treat reporters as civic partners (Bennion 2022).
Ultimately the Citizen Scholar is not a to‑do list; it is a mirror and a map. It validates the Teacher‑Scholar ethos—teach well, research rigorously, and engage responsibly—while pressing us to decide what kind of citizen‑scholar we will be in our local. For many, that will mean greater emphasis on open scholarship and media partnerships than on social media advocacy; for others, it will entail careful activism grounded in methodological clarity and normative transparency. Either way, the book offers tools and perspectives we can adapt to strengthen both scholarship and democracy.
References
AAC&U, AAUP, and NORC. 2025. “National Study of Faculty Attitudes Toward Academic Freedom.” NORC at the University of Chicago.
Bennion, Elizabeth A. 2022. “Tips for Working with the Media.” The Political Science Educator 26(1). Available at: https://educate.apsanet.org/tips-for-working-with-the-media.
Bennion, Elizabeth A. 2023. “The Future of Academic Freedom: State Legislatures and Classroom Content Bans.” The Political Science Educator 26(2). Available at: https://educate.apsanet.org/the-future-of-academic-freedom-state-legislatures-and-classroom-content-bans.
Bennion, Elizabeth A., ed. 2024a. Teaching Experimental Political Science. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Bennion, Elizabeth A. 2024b. “Civil Discourse: Helping Students to Become Conversation Partners.” The Political Science Educator 27(2). Available at: https://educate.apsanet.org/civil-discourse-helping-students-to-become-conversation-partners.
Bennion, Elizabeth A. 2025a. “Preventing a Crisis in the Political Science Classroom: De‑escalation Tips for College Instructors.” The Political Science Educator 28(2). Available at: https://educate.apsanet.org/political-science-educator-volume-28-issue-2.
Bennion, Elizabeth A. 2025b. “Youth Attitudes Toward Democracy: Advice for Political Science Educators.” The Political Science Educator 29(1). Available at: https://educate.apsanet.org/youth-attitudes-toward-democracy-advice-for-political-science-educators.
Boswell, Brad, A. Scott Chinn, and Elizabeth A. Charles. 2024. “The First Amendment and Practical Implications of SEA 202.” Indiana Lawyer / Faegre Drinker Publications, August 28.
Charron, Cate. 2025. “IU Sanctions Professor Over Indiana’s Intellectual Diversity Law.” The Indianapolis Star, August 14.
Cohen, Philip N. 2025. Citizen Scholar: Public Engagement for Social Scientists. New York: Columbia University Press.
Honeycutt, Norman. 2024. Silence in the Classroom: The 2024 FIRE Faculty Survey Report. Philadelphia: Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
Norris, Pippa. 2025. “Professors Are the Enemy: Two Faces of Academic Freedom.” HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series RWP25‑004.
PEN America. 2025. “Indiana University Investigation of Tenured Professor for ‘Intellectual Diversity’ Law an Egregious Threat to Academic Freedom.” Press Release, April 30.
Quinn, Ryan. 2025. “Watching Their Words: Faculty Say They’re Self‑Censoring.” Inside Higher Ed, January 9.
Wilson, John K. 2025. “Indiana’s Attack on Intellectual Diversity.” Inside Higher Ed, November 26.
—
Elizabeth A. Bennion is Chancellor’s Professor of Political Science and Director of Community Engagement at Indiana University South Bend. A nationally recognized civic educator, and long-time author of the APSA Political Science Education Section’s Teacher-Scholar column, she directs public‑facing programs and teaches courses that prepare the next generation of informed citizens for democracy.
Published since 2005, The Political Science Educator is the newsletter of the Political Science Education Section of the American Political Science Association. As part of APSA’s mission to support political science education across the discipline, APSA Educate has republished The Political Science Educator since 2021. Please visit APSA Educate’s Political Science Educator digital collection.
Editor: Matt Evans (Northwest Arkansas Community College)
Assistant Editor: Colin Brown (Northeastern University)
Submissions: editor.PSE.newsletter@gmail.com
