Why I Research

/in , /by

In a recent LA Times Op-Ed Naomi Riley bemoaned academic research in the California State University system. The CSU, she argued, is a “teaching university;” why is the CSU faculty engaAging in research? According to her description full-time faculty avoid teaching by shifting the burden to lecturer faculty so that pre-tenure and more senior faculty can engage in research. Research is the mission of the University of California system, she argues, not the mission of the CSU. In conclusion she scolded CSU faculty, “get back to teaching.”

Ms. Riley’s essay suggests that only faculty benefit from research, earning tenure and promotion for their efforts. The fact is, students benefit from faculty who are actively engaged in research.

There is an old saying: “Those who can do, those who can’t teach.” The implication is that if we were any good at what we do we would be doing it rather than teaching it. Research is all aboutdoing; and doing research makes me a better teacher.

One of the courses that I teach is called “research methods.” In that course students learn how to engage in the systematic analysis of political questions.  For instance, we might want to understand why some people vote while others do not. In this course students develop the ability to construct evidence-based explanations, engage in quantitative analysis of real world data, and consider how policy solutions might change individual behaviors.

How can I teach students to do research if I do not do research myself? Would you hire a personal trainer who did not keep himself in shape? Would you hire a plumber who did not fix your plumbing problem but only told you how you might fix it yourself? Probably not. So would you want to learn research methods from someone who does not engage in research?  I certainly would not.

In my other courses I bring the fruits of my research directly into the classroom. Rather than parrot the textbook by teaching students what others have learned, I bring cutting-edge research on political institutions directly to my students, including the several hundred students to whom I teach Introduction to American Politics every year.

Some of my undergraduate students become directly involved in my research. Using data collected by me and my coauthor they gain hands-on experience pursuing a research project from beginning to end, and they present that research at student research conferences in California. Undergraduate research allows students to apply the knowledge and skills learned through their coursework to complex substantive political questions. Presenting at conferences allow them to gain experience in public speaking, increase their confidence, and help them to build a resume.

Some criticize us for producing students who are “book smart” but do not know how to apply their knowledge and skills. Undergraduate research unites the abstract and the applied and better prepares students for the workforce.

Many of my undergraduate research students are first generation college students (like me) who, perhaps, never considered the value of pursuing graduate work much less pursuing a job in higher education. Are these educational experiences that should be reserved for students who attend the elite University of California schools, prominent private schools like the Claremont Graduate University, or Ivy League schools? Do students who attend a CSU campus not deserve these opportunities? If I did not engage in research these opportunities would not be available to my students.

There are several other indirect ways that my research benefits my students.

Research helps me to build networks inside the real world of politics. These networks benefit our students. One of my standard research tools is “the interview.” By talking with politicians, political staff, lobbyists, and others involved in politics I gain insight into the practice of politics, and that benefits my research. But I also establish relationships with my “subjects.” By capitalizing on these relationships I am able to help students get internships that can lead to employment either directly, as the internship turns into full time work, or indirectly as the experience gained on the job makes the student more attractive to another employer.

Research helps me to build networks in academia. These networks benefit our students. Many of our students decide to pursue graduate education. They need letters of recommendation. Not all recommendations are equal.  A letter that comes from a faculty member who has a “reputation” in the field carries more weight than a letter from an anonymous faculty member. Writing articles and books, and attending professional conferences to present my research improves my profile, connecting me with faculty from across the country. Sometimes a personal email or phone call to a faculty member that I know at their “first choice” graduate institution will get their application closer consideration, or an improved financial aid offer.

Faculty who are engaged in research are better teachers, better advocates for their students, and improve the reputation of the CSU system and their individual campuses. Ms. Riley does not fully appreciate that there is not a “strict wall of separation” between teaching and research. Teaching and research complement one another.

It does not surprise me that someone who has seemingly no sustained experience in college-level teaching or systematic research does not appreciate the relationship between the teaching and research. The implied accusation that CSU faculty are shortchanging their students by engaging in research is scurrilous at worst and unintentionally harmful at best. Discouraging faculty research in the CSU risks ghettoizing a CSU education; I will not be a party to that because our CSU students deserve the same quality education offered at the UCs and other more “prestigious” campuses throughout the country.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Becoming A Researcher: Lesson 1 – Overcoming Diffidence

/in , , , /by

Over the last few months, I have been in the process of “learning” how to become a researcher. It has been a fulfilling sojourn so far; I am excited for where it can go. As I prepare for Western Political Science Association conference in April, I have been reflecting back on the the journey thus far and I was able to identify three lessons I have learned so far on my road to becoming a researcher. Each of the lessons was revealed during three different “era’s” of the last few months: Diffidence, Bewilderment, and Resolve.

I am a proud member of the Interdisciplinary Research Learning Community (IRLC) this semester, and I am working on an independent research project for the first time. The IRLC brings together 17 undergraduate research students to promote interdisciplinary approaches to research questions, and to encourage interest in undergraduate research. It is an amazing opportunity, and I am glad to have had this chance.

When I first submitted my application to become a part of the IRLC, I had this grand imagination that I had just applied to a super elite team of researchers armed with the resources to change the world. I had visions of people working on projects that my brain was likely not even capable of imagining. I thought of a group of people who had an overflow of innovative and learned ideas that would rival Newton, and oratory skills that would bring Cicero to his feet. I thought they would all have years of determination and passion built up, and that I would be the quiet, shy newcomer – not really sure what to do. Slowly, the seeds of Diffidence began creeping into my psyche.

Not long after, I received an email from my mentor saying “Congratulations! You have been selected…” and I was elated! Riding high off of my recent (and first!) academic presentation on “Localized Politics Through the Eyes of Representative Bizz Johnson” at the Southern California Conference for Undergraduate Research (SCCUR), I jumped at the opportunity to accept my appointment to the community and dive into the world of undergrad research. How much harder could working on an independent research project be? I could totally do it! I was going to metaphorically “blow everyone’s mind.”

…And then winter break happened. No, nothing overly terrible happened during the break – it just allowed time for Diffidence to begin decorating its new apartment in my psyche. My research project had ended with the semester; I wasn’t working on anything or preparing for anything – I didn’t have anymore innovative and learned ideas to share! My mind started to increasingly churn: “What will I be doing in this new community?”  “These super elite researchers are all going to be talking about their amazing research, and I am going to end up sitting there with a blank stare.” “Do I really have what it takes to be in this group?” “Are my thoughts and ideas good enough?” “Am I good enough?”

Before the first meeting of the IRLC, I had a met for the first time with one of my professor’s who also happens to be one half of the duo overseeing the IRLC. *Quick aside here: I generally tend to leave decent first impressions on people – this was not one of those times, nor was it the last, unfortunately. Let’s just say, I have learned quite a bit from this professor in our one-on-one discussions on first impressions (and second, and third…).* During our meeting, I was asked for the first time the question that I have since come to equate with panic and fear – “So, what’s your research?”

My response: “Uh, I am not quite sure.”

Diffidence had finally found his home. “Why don’t you know what you’re researching, Cordell?” “Where are your ideas to offer, Cordell?” “How can you prove yourself if you don’t even know what you are doing, Cordell?” For the first time, I had been confronted with the possibility that my fears of not being good enough had merit. The first meeting of the IRLC, I walked into the room and realized my imaginations of the super elite researchers, filled with innovative and learned ideas, for the first time. We were broken off into specialized pods that illustrated the interdisciplinary initiatives in the course design. I introduced myself to my pod and we all got to chattering about ourselves. I discovered that all of my imaginations and visions for what this community would be were accurate – I was surrounded by super elite researchers with innovative and learned ideas. I had been grouped with a nurse specializing in vulnerable populations, an educator specializing in bilingual education development, and an atmospheric chemist studying the rise in mercury levels in the seafood population.

Wow.

To say I felt out of my league was an understatement. Thankfully, I only had a few moments to introduce myself as a “political economist” and didn’t really have to get into my “research” before our conversation had been cut. We were informed that our specialized pod of super elite researchers had been enlisted in the Marshmallow Competition: build the highest freestanding structure using spaghetti noodles, tape, and marshmallows – in 18 minutes. In the first five to ten minutes of the competition, I had taken a back seat. Diffidence told me that I had no valid ideas to offer the group in accomplishing our goals, and that I should just follow their lead. I kept doubting myself, so I remained quiet and followed instructions. I decided to quickly scope out our competition and I was shocked – they were beating us! My mind began racing on how this could be possible – because, of course, our specialized pod of super elite researchers is the best specialized pod of super elite researchers. Suddenly, it hit me – I realized that by being quiet and just following instructions, I had handicapped our team! The green giant that is Competition overcame Diffidence and I decided to take a leap of faith, open up my mouth, formulate words, and offer my ideas to the group. Shockingly, they were well received. Working together and utilizing all of our unique perspectives, we were able to build a structure that tied for first place, and might have given some Kindergartners some real competition!

“I call it the ‘Leaning Tower of SURFers’”

After our first meeting, I found myself thinking back on that experience – all I had to do was think and then share. It suddenly seemed so simple: different people with unique perspectives and diverse backgrounds can band together to solve a problem and achieve a desirable outcome – what a novel concept! Competition, mixed with this enlightenment, made me realize that there was no legitimate reason I was not qualified to continue on in this band of super elite researchers. I wasn’t good enough yet, but I was determined to prove my worth.

My first lesson had been learned: don’t allow fear to overshadow your talent, use it to expand your talent into unknown territories. Diffidence no longer paralyzed me, it fueled me. It was time for me to embark on the path to finding a concrete research question and earn my place among the super elite researchers, with innovative and learned ideas, who have come to be known as: The SURFer’s.

Little did I know that this path would lead to the era of Bewilderment…

(Becoming A Researcher Series: Part 1 of 3)

Day 3: A Reflection on Research Presentations

/in , , , , , , /by

Twenty-six years ago–in April 1989–I attended and presented at my first professional conference. I was finishing my second year of graduate school. Much of my second year in graduate school was invested in working the project that I presented with my advisor, mentor, and friend Larry Dodd. In my first year at Colorado Larry was gracious to involve me in a project that he began a few years earlier looking at the presentational styles of state legislators in California and Indiana. The heart of the argument in the paper is that presentational style is influenced by the professionalization of the legislative institution, and the state’s political development.

Working on the project with Larry was a formative learning, and professional experience.

“Legislators’ Home Style in Traditional and  Modern Systems” was my first exposure to research. Sure, as an undergraduate I scoured the library for literature related to research projects assigned by professors. I even produced a 30 page research paper about political conflict in Northern Ireland during my senior year. Searching the secondary literature and synthesizing competing theoretical approaches is certainly part  of the research process; but these activities do not encompass the research process. Research, in my view, is about creating new knowledge, or new ways of understanding politics (in my case, the world you are studying in your case). Traditional undergraduate research does not achieve this goal.

Working with Larry I learned about data collection, data management, and data analysis. For the first time I used statistical tools in service to a project that really interested me, rather than using them to complete projects with “canned” data. For the first time I struggled with how to interpret statistical results in service of understanding a larger theoretical question. And I wrote. And wrote. And wrote.

In short, research allowed me (forced me?) to pull all the elements of my learning together. I learned at least as much doing research as I did reading research. Among the things I learned is that research is hard. It is full of stops and starts; more failures and dead ends than successes. It forced me to rethink many assumptions I made about myself, and about the political world. It simultaneously satisfied and stimulated my curiosity.

***

Larry Dodd is one of the world’s greatest mentors. His skill is as much in what he does not do and was he does do. He pressed me to produce my best work with his data, then stepped in to gently demonstrate how to write a (masterful) conference paper. Rather than insist on presenting or co-presenting, he left the job to me. Flying solo at my first conference taught me a series of valuable lessons.

It is your research. Chances are that you know the material better than anyone who is listening to your presentation. This means two things: 1) be confident, you are the expert; 2) explain your  research in sufficient detail that the audience can understand your research, even though they have never read your work.

Develop the ability to be self-critical. Know where the weaknesses are in your work. This will help you to anticipate the questions audience members are likely to ask; and be prepared with answers to anticipated questions. This exercise will help to strengthen your research as you incorporate responses into your written work, making it more difficult for reviewers to criticize you (though no matter how hard you work, you will still be subject to criticism).

Be prepared to talk about the applicability of your research. The most common question to be asked is how your research is important in an applied setting. If your research centers on “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin,” be ready to answer the question “who cares?” If you cannot answer that question, you may want to reconsider your research. If you cannot answer the question in front of an audience, you may experience considerable public discomfort.

Guide the audience through your research. For my first presentation (and for many that came after) we did not have the luxury of PowerPoint. Paper handouts were the technology of the day. Audience members became distracted by the material they were handed, and did not listen to the presentation. PowerPoint provides more control over the flow of information to the audience. Use it to your advantage.

  • Do not distract your audience with word-filled PowerPoint slides. Use bullet points to emphasize your talking points, but do not “script out” your talk on the slide and end up reading it to your audience. If they can read, why do they need you?
  • When it is appropriate, you can display an extended quote on a slide; but be sure you plan to read it. Human nature is such that the audience will be caught up reading the quote (thereby missing your explanation). Reading it, and explaining why it is there, will bring your audience back to the reality you are creating for them.
  • Do use PowerPoint slides to display pictures, figures, tables and graphs that are important to your presentation. A picture is worth a thousand words–that is true–but do not expect every person in the audience to understand your picture, figure, graph, or table. It is still your job to explain the display and relate it to your larger research project.
  • Engage with your PowerPoint slides. Point to important information. Your presentation and your slides should be completely, and physically integrated.
  • Use multi-media resources sparingly, if at all. Embedding video, relying on connections to the internet, and the like, is risky business. Failed technology can throw you off your game and, if your presentation revolves around the technology, your presentation may fail completely. Keep it simple, or make sure it is 100 percent guaranteed to work.

Over the years I have come to realize that there is not a fundamental difference between delivering a professional talk, and teaching a room full of undergraduates. In both cases we are striving to get people to understand something important to us. A professional presentation is a teaching exercise. Yes, you are usually presenting at a slightly higher intellectual level, and you can assume more foreknowledge of your topic, but not by much.

***

Like my first foray into research, presenting research is about developing a presentational style. Professionalism is paramount. Your written work, and your PowerPoint slides, should be properly formatted, and free of common spelling and syntax errors. Professional does not need to equate to being stuffy. Be excited and enthusiastic about your work. Avoid jargon and excessively baroque language; it is off-putting. If you are comfortable with it, try to employ humor–it is a great way to relieve any tension you have, or any tension in the room.  Finally, accept the fact that, from time to time, a presentation will fail. Failure is an opportunity to learn how to become a better presenter. Take the time to reflect on your presentations, both successful and unsuccessful, and learn from the experience.

UnCoRe: Undergraduate Computer Research (UNCoRe) in Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace at Oakland University

/in , , , , , /by

UnCoRe – Undergraduate Computer Research in Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace
Deadline: 03/18/2015

The Computer Science and Engineering Department at Oakland University invites students to apply to its eleventh summer of an NSF-funded Research Experience for Undergraduate students. The students selected to participate will be immersed in a research environment under the mentoring of CSE faculty.
This program is a full-time comprehensive educational experience targeted to women and minorities in particular. It should be understood by the students that this position is not merely a summer job, but rather an educational experience where the students are treated as junior colleagues.
Requirements:
Open to all non-graduating undergraduate students (US citizens and permanent residents) with an interest in Computer Science and Engineering.
Students cannot be working or taking classes at the same time.
Students will be selected based on statement of interest, letters of recommendation and a phone interview.

UnCoRe
Computing Alliance of Hispanic-Serving Institutions (CAHSI)