Netherlands sabbatical

My wife and I returned from Europe exactly 6 weeks ago today. From January 1 to February 28 I was a Visiting Professor at the Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development at Utrecht University, working primarily with Rakhyun Kim. I wrote and then recently revised and completed a fairly long manuscript about climate change politics that is currently under review at an international relations journal. Rak and I completed a shorter related piece in late March that is under review in a more policy-oriented outlet. I will be intentionally vague here until the papers are accepted for publication (hopefully). 

Utrecht University was founded in 1636 and the old parts of the medieval city feature an interesting mix of new and old shops and restaurants on narrow cobblestone streets surrounded by canals ....with lots and lots of bicycles. Downtown under the train station there is a bicycle parking facility that is the world's largest with 13,500 spaces! Nonetheless, we found it to be a great city for walking. The artist who created Miffy was from Utrecht and there is a museum devoted to that (I didn't go). 

Chris and I very much enjoyed our time in the Netherlands and I took hundreds of photos. We purchased a Museum Card that granted entrance to an enormous number of cultural sites, which we visited by taking trains, trams, subways, and buses. The mass transit system is terrific and well-integrated though we did have some trouble with train cancellations a couple of times because of ongoing repair work between Amsterdam and Utrecht. 

In Amsterdam, which we visited many times by train, we were especially pleased by the Rijksmuseum (which has a lot of Rembrandt -- see above) and the Van Gogh Museum. We also learned a good deal of Dutch history at the Anne Frank House, the Resistance Museum, and the National Maritime Museum (Chris skipped that one to devote more time to Resistance). Dutch warships were fighting major battles before the US was born. 

     

I can also recommend highly the Mauritshuis in The Hague. It is filled with major works of art by Dutch masters during the era of Rembrandt and Vermeer. 

We also traveled to Den Bosch for Karnival in a light rain and enjoyed a sunny Saturday in Rotterdam where we visited the Depot of Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen. Rotterdam is Europe's largest port and the city was largely rebuilt after being destroyed by bombs in World War II. 

We spent nearly 3 weeks in March in the UK, living in Brighton, the southern coastal town. I'll probably say more about that in a future post. I met with a couple of scholars working at Sussex University and hope that at least one of those meetings leads to productive collaboration sooner or later. 

Visit this blog's homepage.

For 280 character IR and foreign policy talk, follow me on Bluesky.

Global Digital Politics: Fall 2021

I am scheduled to teach a new course this fall on "Global Digital Politics" (POLS 507), which is open to both advanced undergraduates and graduate students. When I was chair, the department created a master's field in Digital Politics:

The Digital Politics field focuses on the intersection of information technology and politics and includes an applied component, providing students with training and experiences useful to their career pursuits. Areas of study include e-government initiatives, social media advocacy and narrative strategies for non-profit organizations, and online political campaigns.

Over the years, the department has offered courses in this track that emphasize American and comparative politics, but I think this will be the initial offering of a truly Global Politics class.

The syllabus will include most of the topics mentioned above -- e-government initiatives, social media advocacy, and narrative strategies for both governmental and non-governmental organizations. My recent research agenda has included a great deal of work on narratives and I am currently involved in a project with colleagues Jason Gainous and Melissa Merry (who both teach regularly in this track) that has implications for social media advocacy. In other words, this is genuinely an area of interest to me.

Because of the lack of central authority in international politics (anarchy), the global context arguably offers a perfect opportunity to promote deliberative democratic forms of e-government. Indeed, my 2004 coauthored book with Nayef Samhat discussed the apparent emergence of deliberative norms (transparency and participation, primarily) in global governance, with case studies of the World Bank and World Trade Organization. To promote democratic accountability, NGOs and international organizations employ various digital tools that we discuss in the book. Nayef and I have also written about deliberation surrounding the buildup to the Iraq war and other topics of shared international concern. Some of my solo writing has also addressed the potential of deliberation on global security and environmental issues. Though some of the conjecture seems dated now, I also previously explored the prospects for deliberation in the digital world.

The course will not cover political campaigns per se, but it will certainly discuss state and non-state interference in various national elections, including the 2016 (and 2020) U.S. presidential election, the Brexit referendum, and various European elections over the past few years.

Indeed, this last point suggests a major theme: the class will focus extensively on the dark side of global digital politics -- surveillance, hacking, ransomware, disinformation campaigns, etc. Some of this will align with the class consideration of social media and narrative strategies. I am trying to decide how much to include about the large tech companies that monitor individuals primarily as consumers. At minimum, we will discuss the overlap with politics -- when governments turn to these corporations to provide data about their customers. 

I am tinkering with various ideas to bring the necessary practical elements into the class, potentially including service-learning elements tied to real-world global social movements and NGOs active in the digital realm. Students would have a great deal of latitude selecting a real world movement or organization, but I will especially encourage selection of human rights, environmental, and peace activism given my own background studying and teaching in these areas. 

The class will not teach students how to employ the tools of the dark side, but it also won't teach much about the specific tools to counter them. We will instead address broad strategies and best practices, addressing the need to identify and employ trustworthy technical expertise in the political realm. 

Right now, the class only has 4 students and I think it would work best with around 15. The cap is set at 20. More students are needed and I'm engaged in active recruitment. 

The class will be organized as an in-person seminar, which means I expect students to interact with one another and with me. I will figure out a way to evaluate the practical component and assign at least one long and one short paper. Any exam would be in essay format and would likely be take-home. I am still working out the details. I am obliged by UofL policies to make the workload a bit tougher for graduate students . 

Visit this blog's homepage.

For 280 character IR and foreign policy talk, follow me on twitter.

Or for basketball, baseball, movies or other stuff, follow this personal twitter account.

Weber

A few weeks ago, my colleague Jasmine Farrier tweeted a reminder about an event I attended prior to the pandemic. It was a book launch for a work about the life of Paul Weber, who died far too young back in October 2005. Paul was department chair when I was hired at Louisville decades ago: 

This was such a special night for an amazing man and friend. Thanks to all who made it happen and all who came to celebrate Paul Weber. https://t.co/yLPhb1Wfrq

— Jasmine Farrier (@Jasmine_Farrier) February 1, 2021

As it happens, I often walk past Paul's grave when I navigate through Calvary cemetery.  As I have frequently mentioned, I have been walking in several nearby cemeteries during the pandemic. They're usually quiet and I've learned a bit about local history. 

Here's a photo of his grave:

Visit this blog's homepage.

For 280 character IR and foreign policy talk, follow me on twitter.

Or for basketball, baseball, movies or other stuff, follow this personal twitter account.

Digital Activism

For years, I've been interested in the possibility of political activism and public deliberation on the internet. As department chair, I recently hired a former graduate student, Matt Evans, to teach an online course on "Political Activism in the Digital Age."

Here's the course description, for students who might be interested in enrolling over the next month:

How do we change the world? 

Over 100 years ago, Henry David Thoreau answered this question by suggesting Americans should vote with their whole ballot. This means utilizing the better part of politics – the aspect that could change the world in the face of impossible obstacles through all those activities outside the realm of voting called activism. 

Political Activism in the Digital Age – an online political science course in Fall 2016 – examines activism through the concrete tactics of activists in groups and social movements within and outside of the US. Rather than work through overpriced textbooks – an oxymoron – the class will draw on readings, videos, and other material accessible through Blackboard to empower students to change the world. For more information, contact the instructor Dr. Matt Evans.

Since it's an online class, students don't have to live in Louisville to enroll. Indeed, the instructor lives and teaches in Arkansas.


Visit this blog's homepage.

For 140 character IR and foreign policy talk, follow me on twitter.

Or for basketball, baseball, movies or other stuff, follow this personal twitter account.

Commemorating the March on Washington

Today is the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. The University of Louisville commemorated the event this afternoon with a program of speakers from the campus and community.

I snapped this picture of my Political Science colleague, Professor Dewey Clayton, who was introducing Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer:

Dr. Clayton was credited as the chief organizer of the event.

Additionally, I took a picture of several other colleagues who attended the symbolic march and event. From left-to-right, Professors David Buckley, Tim Weaver, Susan Matarese (looking down), and Laura Moyer (who noticed me snapping the shot):

Several other colleagues attended at least part of the event, but they are not pictured here. Nonetheless, it was an important event and I was pleased about the Political Science turnout.


Visit this blog's homepage.

For 140 character IR and foreign policy talk, follow me on twitter.

Or for basketball, baseball, movies or other stuff, follow this personal twitter account.

Jasmine Revolt: Cascade Effects?

Photo credit: Flickr page on HINDRAF Rally in Kuala Lumpur by Shamshahrin Shamsudin

Thanks to my sabbatical, I had time this week to attend an interesting panel of a relatively small workshop sponsored locally by the Center for Asian Democracy: "The Jasmine Revolution and the 'Bamboo' Firewall: The impact of the Internet and new social media on political change in East Asia." My colleague Jason Abbott (CAD Director) explains a bit more about it on his blog -- and promises a more complete recap next week.

The panel I attended featured three interesting papers on "The New Media in Southeast Asia: Spotlight on Malaysia."

Asha Rathina Pandi (University of Hawaii, Manoa)
“‘Makkal Sakthi’ (People’s Power): Blogs, civil society and the 2007 Hindraf protest rally in Malaysia”

Meredith Weiss (SUNY – Albany)
“Parsing the Power of ‘New Media’ in Malaysia”

Thomas Pepinsky (Cornell University)
“Tak Nak Mereform: Contemporary Malaysian Politics in Historical Perspective”

Chair/Discussant -- Jason Abbott (University of Louisville)

As a student of international relations, it was somewhat unusual for me to attend a panel clearly constituted by comparativists talking almost exclusively about domestic economic, political and social variables. Indeed, during the Q&A, a fellow workshop participant asked the question that was most on my mind -- how did the Malaysian events the speakers described during their talks tie into the Jasmine Revolt?

One respondent pointed out the different ethnic mix in Malaysia and agreed with an audience member that only Bahrain is somewhat similar in the Middle East context.

I would have liked a lot more followup, to explore potential international and/or transnational dimensions. Did local activists learn from protesters in North Africa and the Middle East? Were new communications media employed globally, or were they primarily used on a local level, as emphasized in the talks? Were there any contagion effects of the other rebellions? Are states of East Asia (this panel focused on Malaysia) feeling any international pressure from bigger powers, international institutions, or transnational NGOs to embrace democratic norms?

Unfortunately, this particular panel did not really address those sorts of questions and I did not have time to attend the Roundtable scheduled to follow this session.

In short, the presentations were good, but not sufficiently IR for my tastes.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Follow me on twitter.

Senators against (Political) Science

Yesterday, the United States Senate voted down the so-called "Coburn amendment," which would have eliminated National Science Foundation support for research in the field of Political Science. Actually, I'm being polite. The resolution offered by the Republican from Oklahoma used this wording:

"Coburn Amendment 2631 – Prohibits the National Science Foundation from wasting federal research funding on political science projects."

Tough stuff.

The Senate defeated this amendment 62-36.

Locally, citizens are represented by Senators who side with Coburn. Mitch McConnell (a Political Science graduate of my Department) voted Yea, as did Jim Bunning and Indiana's Dick Lugar and Evan Bayh. All of those Senators are Republicans, except for Bayh.

John McCain, who is about to make an appearance at University of Louisville, voted with the losers to kill NSF funding to Political Science. Perhaps someone in the packed house can ask him about his vote.

On October 19, the President of the American Political Science Association, Henry E. Brady, outlined his organization's case against the Coburn amendment:

Senator Coburn’s amendment stems from a mistaken belief that political science research is neither scientific nor contributes to the well-being of our nation and its citizens. Science does not come in degrees; it is not logically possible for one science to be “truer” than another. Political science is a “science” because like all the sciences its research methods are based on testable hypotheses and evidence collected according to well-tested criteria that are subject to peer review and verification. The National Science Foundation has led the way in ensuring careful peer review and in applying the highest scholarly standards to all areas of research, including political science.

Political science funding at the National Science Foundation is a remarkably modest amount of funds – just some $9 million. It generates transformative results vastly beyond this small investment. Basic political science research funded by the National Science Foundation has contributed to the nation in myriad ways. Just last week, Dr. Elinor Ostrom, a political scientist at Indiana University, was awarded a Nobel Prize for research funded by the National Science Foundation. She found that collective use problems such as the overuse of shared resources and the degradation of water quality can be effectively handled by local communities rather than by relying exclusively on the central government.

Similarly, 13 of the 17 National Science Foundation and Department of Defense co-supported projects requested by Secretary Gates that examine threats to U.S. interests in the world and identify effective responses, are being carried out by political scientists.

The U.S. National Election Study, also supported by the National Science Foundation’s political science program, has operated since 1948 and is the only reliable, sustained source of information about Americans’ participation in their own political system. The National Election Study has provided assistance to government agencies including the Department of Homeland Security and the Elections Assistance Commission. Pollsters of all political persuasions have supported the ANES over the years because it provides the only reliable baseline for long-term trends and for innovative thinking about how to measure political participation and involvement.

Other political science research is helping federal, state, and local authorities charged with developing effective evacuation plans understand decisions that citizens make in response to natural disasters.

Still other research has helped identify the causes of ethnic strife and civil wars, the impacts of different electoral institutions around the world, and the causes of international disagreements and wars.

Disclosure: I'm a member of the APSA -- and have participated in selection processes and events pertaining to the McConnell Center.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Election forecasts

I did not attend the American Political Science Association convention last weekend, but I have read a few accounts of interesting panels. For example, David Glenn of The Chronicle of Higher Education provided a useful summary from last Friday, "when eight scholars offered stylized forecasting models for this fall's election."

Seven of the scholars predicted popular-vote victories for Mr. Obama, but two of them forecast margins so thin that they said he might easily lose the Electoral College. The eighth panelist was not ready to make an official call because his model is based partly on Labor Day opinion polls. But he said it was very possible that his model would predict a victory for John McCain.

Here are the specific predictions. The article briefly describes their methodologies:

• Brad Lockerbie (East Carolina University): Obama 58%

• Thomas M. Holbrook (University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee) Obama 55.5%

• Alan I. Abramowitz (Emory University) Obama 54.3%

• Christopher Wlezien (Temple University) Obama 52.2%

• Alfred G. Cuzán & Charles M. Bundrick (University of West Florida) Obama 51.9

• Helmut Norpoth (SUNY Stony Brook) Obama 50.1%

• Michael S. Lewis-Beck (University of Iowa) Obama 56.6%. Lewis-Beck worked with Charles Tien (CUNY Hunter College) to make a race adjustment in his model. Result: Obama 50.07%

• James E. Campbell (SUNY Buffalo) uses Labor Day polling and was thus unable to predict a winner on the date of the panel.

According to Glenn, Campbell "said that second-quarter growth was so strong that his model would predict a victory for John McCain unless he polled less than 47 percent on Labor Day."

McCain, in fact, polled less than 47% on Labor Day weekend, though I'm not sure if the input number has to be adjusted to eliminate undecideds and third party supporters. Because these models predict the popular vote for the two major party candidates, the outcome shares always add up to 100 and ignore votes for third party contenders.

Incidentally, while others on the panel apparently agreed that Obama's race provided a large unknown in this election, not everyone was pleased by the Lewis-Beck method:

Abramowitz scorned Mr. Lewis-Beck's procedures: "I don't make ad hoc adjustments to my model," he said.

The various forecast papers are forthcoming as articles in the October PS: Political Science & Politics. In the past 2 elections, these models have accurately forecast the popular vote winner, though they were more accurate in 2004 than in 2000:

In 2004, seven scholars—essentially the same cast of characters—offered forecasts at the political-science meeting. Six of the seven correctly predicted that Mr. Bush would win, and four of their models were within 2.5 percentage points of Mr. Bush's actual vote share. But in 2000 they whiffed, predicting that Al Gore would win between 52.8 percent and 60.3 percent of the two-party vote. His actual share was 50.2 percent.

Because the nominating conventions are so late in the year, this will be an unusually short general election campaign.


Note: I think readers need an account to access most of the content from The Chronicle of Higher Ed. I logged on using our Department's code.

Visit this blog's homepage.