Implementing Campus-level Programming: Pathways for Online Civic Engagement
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
In a year marked by social unrest and a global pandemic, the 2020 presidential election occurred within a context of polarization and incivility. An American Democracy Project (ADP) campus believed that two ways to offset these complications were teaching students how to maintain norms of civility and helping students gain political knowledge that positioned them to contribute to online political discussions. ADP used Web 2.0 tools, namely social media and a web conferencing platform, to host political civic engagement activities and to promote civil political participation. Written from the perspective of a campus ADP chair, this reflective essay draws upon (in)civility, undergraduate political engagement, and online political discourse bodies of literature to offer suggestions for experimenting with Web 2.0 tools as a way to encourage students’ political civic engagement. In doing so, educators learn techniques for helping students become civil, informed, and engaged citizens in a polarized era.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC-BY) 4.0 International, allowing others to share the work with proper acknowledgement and citation of the work's authorship and initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
- Authors are able to enter separate, additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
- In pursuit of manuscripts of the highest quality, multiple opportunities for mentoring, and greater reach and citation of JoSoTL publications, JoSoTL encourages authors to share their drafts to seek feedback from relevant communities unless the manuscript is already under review or in the publication queue after being accepted. In other words, to be eligible for publication in JoSoTL, manuscripts should not be shared publicly (e.g., online), while under review (after being initially submitted, or after being revised and resubmitted for reconsideration), or upon notice of acceptance and before publication. Once published, authors are strongly encouraged to share the published version widely, with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
References
AASCU. (2020). About ADP. American Democracy Project. https://www.aascu.org/programs/ADP/
Alger, J., & Goldberg, A. (2019). Renewing civil society: Madison’s living legacy. In W. V.
Flores & R. S. Rogers (Eds.), Democracy, civic engagement, and citizenship in higher education: Reclaiming our civic purpose (pp. 105-118). Lexington Books.
Arnett, R. C. (2001). Dialogic civility as pragmatic ethical praxis: An interpersonal metaphor for the public domain. Communication Theory, 11(3), 315–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468–2885.2001.tb00245.x
Barber, B. (2003). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age (20th ed.). University of California Press.
Benson, T. W. (2011). The rhetoric of civility: Power, authenticity, and democracy. Journal of Contemporary Rhetoric, 1(1), 22-30. http://contemporaryrhetoric.com/archive.html
Bogard, C. J., Sheinheit, I., & Clarke, R. P. (2008). Information they can trust: Increasing youth voter turnout at the university. PS: Political Science & Politics, 41(3), 541-546. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096508080724
Brandon, R. M. (2014). Student voting: A catalyst for civic engagement. College and University, 89(3), 61-64. https://www.aacrao.org/docs/default-source/c-u-.pdfs/errrfkrusgka26vlipl2_cuj8903_web.pdf?sfvrsn=aecb6ec3_0
Brooks, D. J., & Geer, J. G. (2007). Beyond negativity: The effects of incivility on the electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00233.x.
Carlisle, J. E., & Patton, R. C. (2013). Is social media changing how we understand political engagement? An analysis of Facebook and the 2008 presidential election. Political Research Quarterly, 66(4), 883-895. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912913482758
Carter, S. L. (1998). Civility: Manners, morals, and etiquette of democracy. Basic Books.
Chaffee, S. H. (1982). Mass media and interpersonal channels: Competitive, convergent, or complementary? In G. Gumpert & R. S. Cathcart (Eds.), Inter/media: Interpersonal communication in a media world (pp. 57-88). Oxford University Press.
Coe, K., Kenski, K., & Rains, S. A. (2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 658-679. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12104
Colby, A., Beaumont, E., Ehrlich, T., & Corngold, J. (2007). Educating for democracy: Preparing undergraduates for responsible political engagement. Jossey-Bass.
Dahlgren, P. (2012). Reinventing participation. Geopolitics, history, and international relations, 4(2), 27-45. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26804897
Darr, C. R. (2011). Adam Ferguson’s civil society and the rhetorical functions of (in)civility in United States Senate debate. Communication Quarterly, 59(5), 603-624. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2011.614208
Davis, R. (2009). Typing politics: The role of blogs in American politics. Oxford University Press.
Delli Carpini, M. X. (2000). Gen.com: Youth, civic engagement, and the new information environment. Political Communication, 17(4), 341–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600050178942
Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. Yale University.
Dryer, T., & Ashwell, E. (2000). Attitudes towards politics and public service: A national survey of college undergraduates. The Institute of Politics, Harvard University. https://iop.harvard.edu/survey/details/spring-2000-youth-survey-summary-results
Eveland, W. P., & Hively, M. H. (2009). Political discussion frequency, network size, and “heterogeneity” of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and participation. Journal of Communication, 59(2), 205–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01412.x
Foreman, C. H., Jr. (2008). Comments on chapter two. In P. S. Nivola & D. W. Brady (Eds.), Red and blue nation? Consequences and correction of America’s polarized politics (Vol. 2, pp. 88-93). Brookings Institution Press.
Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2012). The spirit of compromise: Why governing demands it and campaigning undermines it. Princeton University Press.
Han, S.-H., & Brazeal, L. M. (2015). Playing nice: Modeling civility in online political discussions. Communication Research Reports, 32(1), 20-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2014.989971
Han, S.-H., Brazeal, L. M., & Pennington, N. (2018). Is civility contagious? Examining the impact of modeling in online political discussions. Social Media + Society, 4(3), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118793404
Hays, C. E. (1998). Alienation, engagement, and the college student: A focus group study. In T.
J. Johnson, C. E. Hays, & S. P. Hays (Eds.), Engaging the public: How government and the media can reinvigorate democracy (pp. 41-55). Rowman & Littlefield.
Herbst, S. (2010). Rude democracy: Civility and incivility in American politics. Temple University Press.
Hurtado, S. (2019). “Now is the time”: Civic learning for a strong democracy. Daedalus, 148(4), 94-107. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_01762
Hwang, H., Kim, Y., & Huh, C. U. (2014). Seeing is believing: Effects of uncivil online debate
on political polarization and expectations of deliberation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 58(4), 621-633. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2014.966365
Jackson, N., & Lilleker, D. (2009). Building an architecture of participation?: Political parties and Web 2.0 in Britain. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 6(3/4), 232-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331680903028438
Kenski, K., Coe, K., & Rains, S. A. (2020). Perceptions of uncivil discourse online: An examination of types and predictors. Communication Research, 47(6), 795-814. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650217699933
Klofstad, C. A. (2011). Civic talk: Peers, politics, and the future of democracy. Temple University Press.
Knight Foundation. (2020). College students, voting, and the COVID-19 election. The 100
Million Project. https://knightfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/collegepulse_knight_votingstudy.pdf
Koc-Michalska, K., Lilleker, D. G., & Vedel, T. (2016). Civic political engagement and social change in the new digital age. New Media & Society, 18(9), 1807-1816. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1461444815616218
Kwak, N., Williams, A. E., Wang, X., Lee, H. (2005). Talking politics and engaging politics: An examination of the interactive relationships between structural features of political talk and discussion engagement. Communication Research, 32(1), 88-111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650204271400
Levendusky, M. S. (2009). The partisan sort: How liberals became Democrats and conservatives became Republicans. University of Chicago Press.
Loomis, B. A. (2000). Esteemed colleagues: Civility and deliberation in the U.S. Senate. Brookings Institution Press.
Mann, T. E., & Ornstein, N. J. (2008). The broken branch: How Congress is failing America and how to get it back on track. Oxford University Press.
McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. MIT Press.
McClurg, S. D. (2003). Social networks and political participation: The role of social interaction in explaining political participation. Political Research Quarterly, 56(4), 449-464. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290305600407
Meyer, M. J. (2000). Liberal civility and the civility of etiquette: Public ideals and personal lives. Social Theory and Practice, 26(1), 69-84. https://doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract20002613
Molla, R. (2020, November 10). Social media is making a bad political situation worse: America’s polarization problem is bigger than we thought it would be. Vox. https://www.vox.com/recode/21534345/polarization-election-social-media-filter-bubble
Morin, R. (2020, April 21). Coronavirus displaced millions of college students, who worry how they’re going to vote. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/04/21/coronavirus-college-students-worry-how-voting-affected/2945035001/
Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2008). Digital citizenship: The Internet, society,
and participation. MIT Press.
Moy, P., & Gastil, J. (2006). Predicting deliberative conversation: The impact of discussion networks, media use, and political cognitions. Political Communication, 23(4), 443–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600600977003
Mutz, D. C. (2006a). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge University Press.
Mutz, D. C. (2006b). How the mass media divide us. In D. Brady, & P. Nivola (Eds.), Red and blue nation? (Vol. 1). Hoover Institution and Brookings Institution Press.
Mutz, D. C., & Reeves, B. (2005). The new video malaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055405051452
National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement. (2012). A crucible moment: College learning and democracy’s future. Association of American Colleges and Universities.
O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. https://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
Raum, R. D., & Measell, J. S. (1974). Wallace and his ways: A study of the rhetorical genre of polarization. Central States Speech Journal, 25(1), 28-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510977409367765
Rimmerman, C. A. (1997). Teaching American politics through service: Reflections on pedagogical strategy. In G. Reeher and J. Cammarano (Eds.), Education for citizenship: Ideas and innovations in political learning (pp. 17-29). Rowman & Littlefield.
Rojas, H., & Puig-i-Abril, E. (2009). Mobilizers mobilized: Information, expression, mobilization and participation in a digital age. Journal of Communication-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 902-927. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01475.x
Rossini, P. (2020). Beyond incivility: Understanding patterns of uncivil and intolerant discourse in online political talk. Communication Research, 0(0).1-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650220921314
Ryfe, D. M. (2006). Narrative and deliberation in small group forums. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34(1), 72-93. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880500420226
Sobieraj, S., & Berry, J. (2011). From incivility to outrage: Political discourse in blogs, talk radio, and cable news. Political Communication, 28(1), 19-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2010.542360
Stromer-Galley, J. (2007). Measuring deliberation’s content: A coding scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.16997/JDD.50
Strauss, V. (2020, August 31). The problem COVID-19 presents for college students who want to vote in November. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2020/08/31/problem-covid-19-presents-college-students-who-want-vote-november/
Stroud, N. J., Scacco, J. M., Muddiman, A., & Curry, A. L. (2015). Changing deliberative norms on news organizations’ Facebook sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(2),188–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12104
Uslaner, E. M. (1991). Comity in context: Confrontation in historical perspective. British Journal of Political Science, 21(1), 45-77. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400006025
Williams, R. S., & Humphrey, R. (2007). Understanding and fostering interaction in threaded discussion. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 129–143. https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/1729/780