Monthly Archives: January 2004

rural schools and civics

I met this morning with Rachel Tompkins, president of The Rural School and Community Trust. I was persuaded that civic education is exceptionally important in rural schools.

First of all, rural areas face serious economic and social problems because they are devalued–young people feel that they have to move to big cities to succeed. Developing a positive understanding of community (through research and activism) is part of civic education, and it could reduce the “brain drain.” Second, many rural educators believe that rural schools are deprived of their fair share of state education funding. If we assume (for the sake of argument) that this is correct, then rural students can do themselves good and learn about civics by advocating for more funding. Third, it is a general truth that schools work best when they are supported by adult citizens who participate in a rich civic life, with lots of meetings, networks, and organizations. In rural areas, schools provide an essential mechanism for building such networks, and students can play important roles. Many of these factors also apply in urban schools, but we tend to forget about the rural sector. As Rachel points out in this interview, 14 percent of students live in areas with populations of 2,500 of smaller, and 98 percent of the nation’s poorest counties are rural.

taking responsibility

In yesterday’s Washington Post, Barton Gellman shows pretty effectively that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction after the early 1990s–but also that it was possible for American leaders to make an honest mistake about this. Saddam’s history of using poison gas and his continued trickery made him look pretty guilty. I think, indeed, that he was deliberately bluffing.

So wouldn’t it be refreshing and disarming (no pun intended) if the President said the following? “We have captured a wicked dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and waged war on his neighbors. We are now doing our level best to build a democratic state in the middle of an extremely important region. We told you that the reason for the war was fear of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. Like President Clinton and many foreign leaders, we were genuinely convinced that Iraq had live chemical and biological weapons and an advanced nuclear program. We were wrong, and we take responsibility for our error. You may hold us accountable for this failure of analysis. But we made an understandable mistake which may lead to a tremendous amount of good.”

George W. Bush is not the kind of guy who ever says things like this, and he would be a better leader if he did. However, it’s also pretty obvious that the press, Democrats, and foreign leaders would jump all over him if he retracted his original reason for the war. We have a political culture that simply does not tolerate changes of mind, and that does not serve us well in times of deep uncertainty.

quantitative and qualitative methods

I’ve recently seen two almost identical charts explaining the difference between

qualitative and quantitative research. One was shown at a conference, the other

presented in a graduate level methods textbook. I didn’t save the charts, unfortunately,

but this is how I recall them. (Similar charts can be found on the Web, e.g.,

here

and or at the bottom of this

page.)

quantitative qualitative
detached engaged
value-neutral partial/committed
claims objectivity admits subjectivity
seeks general findings denies that general rules apply in cases
describes the mean looks for exceptions, complications
pulls factors out of context describes situations holistically
assumes certainty presumes uncertainty
distinguishes causes from effects does not presume to isolate causes

I think this is a very misleading way to draw the distinction. Quantitative

research means mathematical analysis; qualitative research means descriptions

in words. The use of math requires quantification and a large enough sample

to generate statistically meaningful results. The use of descriptive language

requires enough detail about cases to generate insightful narratives or portraits.

Both approaches are useful. Neither method implies positivism (a strict distinction

between facts and values, or between facts and opinions), nor does either method

imply skepticism or postmodernism. One can use quantitative methods–such as

surveys and statistical analysis of the results–in a deeply engaged, critical,

"political" way, without any illusions that one is objective. Or one

can use qualitative methods–such as in-depth interviews–in a highly "positivistic"

spirit (thinking that one has no values or biases and no axes to grind). Charts

like the one above appeal to very general beliefs (or prejudices) about epistemology

and drive us to favor either quantitative or qualitative methods. Instead, I

think we should simply ask what can usefully be counted in particular cases,

and what cannot.

activism and deliberation

Along with Rose Marie Nierras of LogoLink, I’m applying for a small grant to interview political activists and people who promote public deliberation, to get some sense of the differences between these approaches.

On a simple definition, “deliberation” means convening a diverse group of citizens and asking them to talk, without any expectation or hope that they will reach one conclusion rather than another. The population that is convened, the format, and the informational materials are all supposed to be neutral or balanced. There is an ethic of deference to whatever views may emerge from democratic discussion. Efforts are made to insulate the process from deliberate attempts to manipulate it. In contrast, the simple view of “advocacy” implies an effort to enlist or mobilize citizens toward some end. At their best, advocates are candid about their goals and open to critical suggestions. But they are advocating for something.

To be sure, there are versions of advocacy that incorporate genuine deliberation, just as there are deliberative exercises aimed at policy goals. Nevertheless, there is at least a potential tension between the two approaches. Many advocates for disadvantaged populations explicitly say that deliberation is a waste of their limited resources. And some proponents of deliberation see organized advocacy as a threat to fair and unbiased discussion; hence their efforts to protect deliberative forums from being “manipulated” by groups with an agenda.

Our full proposal is available online, and comments are welcome on a dedicated website.

“bold, persistent experimentation”

I spent today at a meeting, which I had organized, on how to mobilize young voters. Almost half of the participants were nonpartisan practitioners who are trying to increase youth voting in 2004. Another large group were researchers who do “field experiments” on various methods of getting out the vote. In other words, they randomly assign some registered voters to get a “treatment” (such as a phone call), and leave the rest untreated. They then measure the actual difference in voting between the two groups–not using polls, but consulting official voting records. Overall, this highly rigorous method finds that young voters can be mobilized cost-effectively by means of phone banks and door-to-door visits.

We have reported many of these results in the past and will summarize them again shortly. Meanwhile, for me, some of the most interesting results emerged from the work of a Yale graduate student, Andra Gillespie. She said that civil rights organizations are often resistant to testing their voter outreach efforts. They are confident about what they’ve been doing for generations (even though there’s some evidence that it has no effects). It struck me that our society badly needs organizations that are both experimental and also authentically rooted in communities. Such organizations are needed not only in the youth voting area, but more generally.

We have institutions, such as universities and foundations, that are willing and able to test programs, but they have little accountability or credibility. They fly in, test a new program or approach, bless it or condemn it on the basis of their research, and then leave. Because they lack street-level credibility, they have trouble mobilizing people, so they often don?t get great results. Meanwhile, there are organizations that really do represent and serve communities over the long term, but they refuse to subject their methods to tough testing. I can think of very few (if any) organizations that combine credibility and accountability with true experimentalism. I love FDR’s New Deal slogan: “bold, persistent experimentation,” but we lack the institutions to make this happen.