Purpose of Civic Engagement

Initial discussions revealed a consensus that political science courses need to address civic education and advocate for civic engagement. We further agreed that the driving legitimacy of civic education should be to raise consciousness, foster interest, and encourage participation in the public sphere. Low voter turnout among young adults is an obvious source of concern, but more disconcerting are the core problems: lack of interest and trust; lack of anticipated relevance; and lack of knowledge about how to participate meaningfully. Having identified these problems, our discussions turned to considerations of our collective professional responsibility. Central to our discussions was the question: Are we, as educators, part of the problem or part of the solution? More specifically, do we reinforce cynicism with critical analyses or provide the energy and skills to create interest and opportunity? An overarching conclusion of the workshop was to call upon the profession to consciously shift from the former to the latter.

Our discussions also recognized a wide spectrum of participatory activities ranging from unscheduled public discourse to concerted mobilization, all of which carry legitimacy and include skills that can be addressed in political science courses. Expectedly, citizens experience different levels of active mobilization at different points in their lives. Highlighting diverse approaches to our students coincides with this fluidity of participation over a lifetime. Our discussion also emphasized the importance of cross-national and international perspectives, particularly in the post-9/11 world, for fostering interest, relevance, and knowledge among American undergraduates.

Teaching about Civic Engagement

Presentations covered different dimensions to teaching civic engagement, including case studies, skills practice, and peer-directed participation. Each offered unique opportunities and carried its own strengths. Teaching civic engagement in the classroom through case studies is an effective use of scarce classroom resources, the success of which is supported by the evidence presented by many of the participants in our discussion. Although case studies are often associated with courses in American politics, some of our participants demonstrated their untapped potential for teaching civic engagement in the context of comparative politics. In comparative politics classes, students can analyze quantitative and qualitative measures of political participation, explore the contrasting boundaries of legal and illegal participation, and understand types of political participation within the context of a country's social and economic institutions.

Beyond the comparison of countries, individual cases are a valuable tool to “place a human face” on the possibilities and inevitable challenges of participation. Whether through historical or fictional stories, the examples provide teaching opportunities to reveal important lessons about the political process. Unintended consequences of decisions and action, as well as the coping strategies employed when an individual does not “win” his or her preferences are essential components to encourage sustained civic engagement. The examples of individual cases ranged from the conservative to the liberal, from the transparent activist to the unassuming participant. Within our workgroup there was a strong recognition that our role as educators needed to be the promotion of civic engagement's value independent of any particular political or ideological agenda. We need to provide the examples for our students to see civic engagement as an invitation for diversity, and also as a responsibility to engage with diverse and often conflicting opinions.

Teaching through Civic Engagement

A second pedagogical perspective emphasizes the practice of those skills that are part of civic engagement. We have all heard the adage: “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” On the broadest scale, something similar can be said about the overarching purpose of civic education and our responsibility as political scientists to foster awareness of, knowledge about, and interest in the affairs of the public sphere. The civic engagement/education track reached a general consensus that the purpose of civic education was to expose students to the necessary skills needed to live as sound and responsible citizens.

Unprecedented attempts during the 2004 presidential campaign endeavored to interest young people in politics by registering them to vote—Rock the Vote, Rap the Vote, Vote or Die. Indeed, voter turnout amongst the youngest voters did rise. Yet, very little was offered in the way of true civic education. A central theme of our discussions was the civic value of understanding what “winning” or “losing” an election means in the context of democracy. Many young people who voted for the first time were inculcated with a sense of politics as only about winning or losing—call it the Vince Lombardi view of politics. With the election over, the spasms of civic responsibility have subsided. And herein lies the problem: give a young person a voter registration card, and s/he may vote today. Teach a young person the importance of civic participation on a much deeper level, and s/he may vote for life.

Though voting is of paramount importance, it is just one piece of the civic education puzzle. Civic education has to focus on more than voting. With this goal in mind, learning through civic engagement activities became an incredibly important vehicle in our group.

Civic engagement creates opportunities for expanding political consciousness by connecting the everyday experiences of the individuals and communities with whom students come in contact to the larger, structural problems of society. Students reach greater levels of understanding as they become aware of the larger problems that society faces over a long period of time. As educators of politics, our responsibility is to see that our students become politically literate: that is, they acquire objective knowledge about the political world that will allow them to comprehend, evaluate, and analyze the world around them. At the same time, as professors of politics, it is also our responsibility that our students consider and learn the values of good citizenship—and engage the political world in a meaningful way. The courses we discussed in our track were successful precisely because they promoted political literacy and civic education through civic engagement activities. Successful courses built around civic engagement activities couple thought and action to help students reflect on their experiences. The classroom thus becomes the venue for a discussion of the “structural” problems they witnessed firsthand. It provides a place for critical reflection about the causes of the problems they faced and the solutions that they may offer.

Civic Engagement: The State of the Discipline

Our panel agreed that the discipline must impact the development of citizenship. While political scientists cannot “own” civic engagement, we should lead it by being the academic catalyst for discussion and action. The most basic starting point is to raise our presence in the public discourse as a discipline. It is unclear if the public really knows what political scientists do. They hear from us in news sound bites upon occasion, particularly around election time. Our discipline must focus more on explaining what our work is and how it is relevant for all citizens, and we need to actively address politics in the classroom, before citizens reach voting age. Political science needs to become more involved in middle and high school teacher education. Thus far, we have abdicated this role to the disciplines of history and education. As a result, our perspectives on the importance of understanding the political process and basic learning goals are largely absent in primary and secondary education. Many teachers and school districts are scrambling for information and ways to incorporate current events into their curriculum, and we, as a discipline, have not responded effectively.

A general viewpoint in our panel is that part of this unresponsiveness stems from the lack of value placed on the research and time necessary to work on civic engagement projects. All of our presenters committed substantial time to conduct research outside of their primary interests in creating these projects, yet their work is not recognized as much beyond charity. Such programs are different from service because, unlike the usual committee posting, they require traditional academic research, explicitly incorporate teaching goals and learning outcomes, and educate those beyond the university's gates. It thus merits its own place in our discipline. If the profession does not reward the serious, scholarly commitment required to run these programs, whether through the category of Scholarship of Engagement or Scholarship of Application, then the call for increasing the discipline's role in enhancing the civic engagement of our citizens cannot be answered. Put simply, few will participate in these activities if they are not considered a truly valued and important part of the tenure and promotion criteria. And, if we do not value the work involved in civic engagement, how can we expect our students and communities to?