Political Science Educator: volume 27, issue 2
Reflections
By Ryan Gibb (ryan.gibb@bakeru.edu)
Cultivating an engaged public is at least part of the responsibility of university professors. As such, it is necessary to help to connect students with their political environments. Politics is salient in students’ lives, but as an academic subject it can be alienating. Rationally, students invest their time in things that interest them (their careers, their relationships, their hobbies). In this way, students are much like adults. However, American Politics in general, and the activities of contemporary political actors in particular, have never been more important.
As a final project, students in my Introductory American Politics course had a civic engagement assignment to illustrate concepts from the semester. Students had the option to 1) investigate the process of petitioning the city for a parade or demonstration, 2) on writing about the process of becoming a US citizen, or 3) conduct person-on-the street interviews with questions culled from the US Naturalization test. Civic learning, similar to service-learning projects, can help students to ground in-class content with their political communities and increase students’ sense of personal efficacy (Bardwell 2011, Marcus et al. 1993). While the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning research is limited with regards to campus interviews specifically, civic engagement projects have become a well-established learning tool in political science courses (Bennion and Laughlin 2018).
Each of the options connect well with concepts from the course. However, of the fifteen students in this class, twelve decided on the third option and chose to conduct the interviews. While the first two options resemble many standard assignments, the third (and most popular) option presented a problem and a lesson: are the student participating in human subjects research when interviewing their peers? We had to ask, would this assignment require Internal Review Board (IRB) approval? Ultimately, it did not, but this potential issue provided another topic (ethics in human subjects research) to discuss with students.
Students were eager to ask their peers “gotcha” questions, knowing that the proximate effect would be to embarrass their peers. That indeed happened. However, it is clear that the interviewers in the project, the ones who were in on the joke, were also insecure with their knowledge. I modeled this process after a series called Politically Challenged, a video created by Texas Tech students. Like those videos, students asked their interviewees for their name, age/year at university, and their major. Unlike that series, I used questions from the US Naturalization test and two, updated, questions from popular culture. Students were free to find peers where ever they could on campus, and the results included common areas in the dormitory, the campus union, and even cheer practice. After explaining the purpose of the interview, students asked their peers:
- How many amendments does the US Constitution have?
- Who makes federal laws?
- Name one of your state’s senators
- How many members of the House of Representatives are there?
- Who is the chief justice of the Supreme Court?
- Who is the speaker of the House?
- Name one of the writers of the Federalist Papers.
The “gotcha” element illustrated when the students were asked to respond to questions about popular culture. In this instance, students were asked
- Who is Travis Kelce dating?
- Name a Kardashian
Using iMovie, I compiled video clips using the most usable elements of each interview. Students related that these videos were reminiscent of those that they have seen on TikTok. While better apps or programs likely exist, I used iMovie and published the end results on my private YouTube channel. This privacy gives me an elevated level of control over the viewers and the content, though once something is online it potentially exists somewhere forever.
Students conducting the interviews thanked their subjects and discussed the objectives of their questions. The objective was not to embarrass students. Chief among the objectives was to consider the steps involved in gaining citizenship, and also the factors that lead to alienating citizens. As Courtney Plunk of PoliTech argued in the original Texas Tech version, “this is not a criticism of the school’s academics but instead a bold message to college students everywhere to get more involved. We are confident that if we were to conduct this same experiment at any other university in the nation, we would receive the same answers” (2014, 0:21). Plunk correctly identified students, even very passionate students, as “politically challenged” insofar as becoming civically engaged often includes a steep learning curve with little immediate payoffs. For many, this is a hobby. For others, it is a career. However, there is a significant number of students (and citizens) who will remain disengaged. In this project, students shared videos of their interviews, and effect was a practical application of the concepts of an engaged public (or lack thereof) and the alienated American public.
However, there was also a methodological lesson in this exercise: were the interviews human subjects research? Federal Regulations define human subjects research as, “a living individual about whom an investigator conducting research obtains (1) data through intervention or interaction with the individual, or (2) identifiable private information (45 CFR 46.102 (f)(1)(2)).” The interviews themselves did not disclose anything personal or illicit, but the subjects were identifiable, and (according to the language of the protocol) they may be subject to an element of shame for not knowing these answers. In class, we discussed ethics and informed consent. We reviewed a researcher’s obligation to protect human subjects when conducting research. We also discussed the distinction between generalizing public knowledge and conducting in-class activities. Though this was an introductory class, it was important for students to begin to think about research ethics and how their actions might influence the subjects of their research.
According to the University of Iowa’s Human Subjects Office Institutional Review Board, a study is generally exempt for educational purposes or as part of a course-related activity. There are other stipulations, including that the data is not to be used outside of the classroom. It is important, then, to not share the outcomes of the research with campus. It is possible to conduct the same project with IRB approval, and future iterations of this project may involve the university’s IRB.
Civic and student engagement projects are not only popular, but evidence suggests that they enhance learning. However, like other course planning, it is necessary to carefully understand the potential implications of these projects.
References
Bardwell, Kedron. 2011. “Fact Checks, Voter Guides, and GOTV: Civic Learning Projects in American Politics Courses.” Journal of Political Science Education 7 (1): 1–13. DOI:10.1080/15512169.2011.539899
Elizabeth A. Bennion and Xander E. Laughlin. 2018. “Best Practices in Civic Education: Lessons from the Journal of Political Science Education.” Journal of Political Science Education 14(3): 287-330. DOI: 10.1080/15512169.2017.1399798
Markus, Gregory B., Jeffrey P. F. Howard, and David C. King. 1993. ‘‘Integrating
Community Service and Classroom Instruction Enhances Learning: Results from an Experiment.’’ Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 15(4): 410–419. DOI:10.2307/1164538
PoliTech. 2014. PoliTech Issues Statement to Critics. Accessed December 13, 2023.
https://www.ttuhub.net/2014/11/politech-issues-statement-to-critics/
PolitTech. 2014. Politically Challenged: Texas Tech Edition. Accessed December 13, 2023. https://youtu.be/yRZZpk_9k8E
U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services. Accessed December 13, 2023. https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/questions-and-answers/100q.pdf
U.S Department of Health and Human Services. Code of Federal Regulations. 2018 Common Rule. Accessed December 13, 2023. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/revised-common-rule-regulatory-text/index.html
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Accessed December 13, 2023. https://hso.research.uiowa.edu/
Ryan Gibb is an Associate Professor of International Studies at Baker University in Kansas. His research interests include pedagogy, African politics, and research methods.
Published since 2005, The Political Science Educator is the newsletter of the Political Science Education Section of the American Political Science Association. All issues of The Political Science Educator can be viewed on APSA Connects Civic Education page.
Editors: Colin Brown (Northeastern University), Matt Evans (Northwest Arkansas Community College)
Submissions: editor.PSE.newsletter@gmail.com
APSA Educate has republished The Political Science Educator since 2021. Any questions or corrections to how the newsletter appears on Educate should be addressed to educate@apsanet.org
Educate’s Political Science Educator digital collection
