I’ve been thinking about my job lately. My thoughts were published yesterday in the University Venus and via Inside Higher Ed. You can find them here: http://tinyurl.com/3qq2gls  I’ve been quite pleased with the response and the conversations that I’ve had on the site, over coffee and on Twitter.

People agree that the abuse of contingent (part-time) faculty is problematic. Essentially, they are under-paid and overworked. This really causes a hierarchy in higher education where research focused faculty rise to the top and the teaching focused faculty are the one with the increased face-time with students. Now, I’ll be the first person to defend teaching. However, this hierarchy normalizes research and makes teaching appear as the least important aspect of the job. I argue that both are important and make a difference within higher education. I will also admit my frustration and almost anger, when I hear colleagues dismiss teaching. My current colleagues aren’t guilty of this, but I have heard it on this campus or others where I have taught.

We need to think about this more. As I noted via Twitter, there are no easy answers. However, the dual stream will work on some campuses and I’m in a good position that works for me, my department and I’d argue for my students.

I was lucky enough to have access to Innovative Research Group’s (IRG) polling data from their “Federal Election Study Guide: Inter-Generational Vote.” The online survey took place in Canada during April 8th- 13th 2011. The results are from the 831 youth respondents. Here, youth counts as someone aged 18-24. IRG notes that this survey is reliable with a random selected panel of respondents.

The actual results are more than 50 pages long and I will only speak to some of the questions and data. I was most struck with the questions or the wording of some of the questions. If I had more time, I would have liked to contact IRG and had a conversation. Any good survey is going to offer a random sampling from the population, so that the results are then generalizable to the larger population. My comments are mine alone and not my employer. Given that today is elections day, time is of the essence and I will merely speak to two statements that the survey made regarding social media and information.

The survey offers data about social media. Youth were queried: “I can learn most everything I need to know about politics from social media” and “To really follow politics, you need to watch the news and read the newspaper.” Now, both of these statements are problematic. The first statement needed to break down the term social media. Since youth were early adopters of social networking sites (SNS) like MySpace and Facebook, we need to acknowledge the ways in which the SNS are used by them. Additionally, we also know that youth have not been early adopters of Twitter, so that the question needed to be more focused.

The second statement is also an issue. Most youth do not subscribe to a hard copy of a newspaper, but rather are more apt to read their news online. The question should have been more specific about news and the means by which they actually read, listen or watch the news. If anything, these two statements do not really offer youth to answer fully how they consume information. I argue that these questions are more appropriate for their parents.

Now, it’s all too easy for me to tease apart questions after the fact, but that is part of what we do as informed people. And, add to this the fact that I am a political scientist, I should be looking closely at surveys about youth and elections prior to an election. I must give thanks to the reporter who shared the survey information with me: Josh De Haas. His article about the youth vote can be found here http://www2.macleans.ca/tag/youth-vote/

I am a collector of information. It probably started back in grade school. When I am working on a project, I try to come at it from every angle. I am thorough and I bring this to my work life and personal life. I also like to share this information with others, as it can be really useful.

I have always subscribed to different academic listservs and in the day of Web 2.0 this might seem outdated, but I have to say that there are some really useful listservs for academics. For instance, I was just reading the latest email sent via Tomorrows Professor (Rick Reis):  TP Msg. #1097 Joining Your Department and Discipline – Negotiating Tips. This post is prescient for anyone on the academic job market. Now, I know that jobs are far and few, but you should negotiate the offer. Be reasonable, but really weigh the offer and look at the starting salary, which will influence each of the merit raises thereafter.

Research has found that women, in particular, do not negotiate their salaries as often as men. I’m not here to argue this point, but throw it out there and remind everyone to review their offers closely. And, to suggest that you sign up for Tomorrows Professor. There are post that are geared more toward helping an advanced graduate student work on the thesis or dissertation project through posts to help chairs manage their job.

If you know of other useful listservs, please let me know. Off the top of my head I subscribe to: WMST-L, Tomorrows Professor, Latino List, Race, Ethnicity and Politics List, Feminist Theory and Gender Studies, and some others that I’m sure I’m forgetting right now. And, do make sure that you share the information with others who might share similar interests.

I have had the pleasure of hearing Shari Graydon, Media Action, speak on a few occasions. This last January I attended one of her workshops and I cannot stress how helpful it was.

Let me back up though and speak to the sheer awesomeness of Shari Graydon. She is a well-known feminist journalist and media expert. She’s also an award-winning author. Informed Opinions is really meant to get women to respond to media requests for expert opinions as authors of op-ed pieces and other articles.

After enrolling in the Informed Opinions workshop, I had three separate op-eds published. The op-eds added to my usual commenting on gender issues or the upcoming Canadian election ( #elxn41 ). One of the things that I have noticed is that my students and people in the community have responded favorably to my presence in and outside of the #UVIC university community.

There is something particularly endearing hearing from friends, community contacts and my students about the op-eds. Given my life-long learning commitment, it’s only expected that I or other educators offer our “informed” opinion about pertinent matters. Frankly, as an academic I think that this is part of being a public intellectual.

Graydon’s project speaks to the need to have more women speaking to public matters. And, I thank her for her work in this respect. If you look at the daily newspapers, you will notice (hopefully) that there is a dearth of women writing op-eds and cited as experts. Without belaboring this too much, I do suggest that you look at Graydon’s work. Here is a link to one of the latest blog posts. http://tinyurl.com/3p6olfc

After spending almost a week in San Antonio and prepping for my Pop Culture seminar, I’m coming back to thinking about  a few things. The first is mainstream representation of Native or Indigenous peoples in the US and Canada. And, the second is about the ways in which history is told.

I just opened my email and a dear friend sent me a link to a website. Apparently, Miley Cyrus has a new dreamcatcher tattoo. I wonder how many of her fans will follow suit? What does it signify for a white woman to have a sacred image placed on her body? Is this another example of appropriating a sacred motif in a new age sort of manner?

While in San Antonio on my walks, I passed a tobacco shop that had the apparently requisite wooden Indian sculpture outside of the shop and many other shops had Indians or their likeness outside of their shop or in the store windows. The area I was staying in is the Riverwalk and is a tourist destination or perhaps tourist trap. Where we might expect to see more of these kitschy depictions of Native culture and Latino culture for that matter.

This brings me to the Museo Alameda in the Marketplace. When a friend and I decided to tour the museum we stopped and looked at one another when we saw that the museum was funded thanks to the venerable Latino organization—the Ford Motor Company. Please note my sarcasm. We entered with pause wondering about the supposed benevolence of the car company. The first part of the museum referred to Diaz as a French liberator of the Mexican people.

For a moment I forgot I was in a museum and was ready to tweet that the museum begins with some revisionist history. The Mexican Revolution was actually in response to Diaz! A docent approached me and firmly noted that I could not take photos. From then on we walked through the exhibit. I later found out that there are some temporary and permanent parts to the exhibit. However, even knowing this I was struck how the history presented was really one that highlighted mostly an elite point of view and most definitely one that is male.

As a feminist political scientist, I know that I should not be surprised, but considering my familiarity with some Texas history I also know that there were many missing women—artists, activists, politicians, judges, philanthropists and the like. I kept on hoping to see more, but it never happened. I’m thankful that I’ve had the opportunity to read books about Latina trailblazers, but what about visitors who have not?  They might not notice the absence, since it will offer business as usual. History told by men—about men. This might seem harsh, but this was my reaction after touring the exhibit.

The Institute of Texan cultures (Smithsonian institution) was a little better in this respect. The exhibit highlighted the diversity of cultures in Texas and more women were visible in the displays, but again missing were some of the prominent firsts in Texas—the first judges, politicians, artists, etc. The museums strong suit, if you will, was the exploration of the different communities. If you are ever in San Antonio, I suggest you visit Hemisfair Park and walk over to the Institute. It’s definitely worth the visit.

I am done with the intensive grading for this term and will begin prepping for the Summer session. I’m thinking about this term and one thing that I noticed in two of my classes–students really want to engage in discussions about gender norms and the tired gender tropes. But, they also want to have lengthy discussions about masculinity.

Discussions about hegemonic masculinity seemed to open up a whole new world of analysis for some of the students. Today (yes, even in 2011) there are still assumptions that gender = women. When the students realize that we are talking about a gender continuum some minds are blown. And, that we will discuss masculinity even confounds more of them. Consequently, I have been thinking more about masculinity. Hell, I just graded many papers exploring masculinity.

I’ve noted previously on my blog that I’m really tired and fed up with the ways in which pop culture portrays men and masculinity as a caricature or stereotype. Yes, let’s make men the butt of jokes. No, let’s not. But, what I have noticed with the student papers and office hours is that they really want to re-think masculinity. They want the continuum to provide a more rich offering for what constitutes masculinity and they also want to better understand men. And, I have to say as a feminist scholar, I’m quite impressed with this interest. I think it’s great for their personal discovery and intellectual engagement.

I am a firm believer that every election is an important one, but some are more important than others. I also don’t subscribe to the idea that we can have too much democracy. During my seven years in Canada I have watched each election intently. Maybe not with the same care that I watch the American elections, since I can actually vote there and the US is my home country, nonetheless I am an avid election watcher.

These last spate of elections (municipal and the leadership races and the federal election) were slightly different, as I was paying more attention to the use of Social Media (#soc media). Frankly, I have been watching the use of social media in the US, as an American trained Political Scientist who regular teaches American Politics. But, what I found different this last round was the use of some “old school” technology to reach out to voters.

Last fall, the first Town hall Teleforum or Telephone Town hall took place in British Columbia. It was coordinated by the Barry Hobbis for City Council (Victoria, BC or #YYJ) Campaign. This ended up being the first of many of the phone town halls. What happens is that there is a well-organized phone conference with constituents. Usually the constituents are registered party members or supporters. The phone rings during the dinner hour and you listen in on the town hall. There are also opportunities to call in and ask questions.

The teleforums were also common this winter during the BC Provincial Liberal leadership races. I have now listened to three of the teleforms and tried to organize a public teleform during the leadership race, but there wasn’t enough lead time and it was too close to the Reading Break.

Last Thursday evening, I was contacted about the teleforum that it set to take place this evening and I jumped on it to help facilitate this event. It’s important to note a few things, though. This event is about voter engagement and demystifying the teleforum. While we will listen to one candidate’s teleforum this event is not an implicit endorsement for the candidate by me, the Political Science department or the University of Victoria. I do thank students for their help in booking the event.

There will be information shared about voting in the election and this information is for everyone. My hope is that the audiences will comprise people of different partisanship, so that we can listen and then have a discussion about the teleforum. And, I do think it’s important to end reminding people that I vote in the United States. I cannot vote in Canada, so I’ll be watching intently the American election during the next 18 months. Americans like elections to simmer, boil, simmer, boil and repeat every two years for the Congress and have a Presidential circus, I mean, election every four years!

I hope that you can make tonight’s event. Here are the details:

Christopher Causton’s Teleforum at 6pm at Social Sciences Mathematics A (SSM A) Room 120.

Please remember that you have to pay to park at UVic. The closest parking lot is Lot 4 by Centennial Stadium.  Here is a parking lot map for the campus: http://www.uvic.ca/maps/pdfs/Accessibility-Map-2010.pdf Park in Lot 4 and then walk across the cross walk to the building. Enter and take the elevator or stairs to the first floor.

When I was in the deep throes of writing my dissertation, I was a co-facilitator for a group called, “Let’s Finish.” We were all working on our theses or dissertations at different campuses and different areas of studies. There were some working on graduate degrees in Leadership, Education, History, Political Science, as well as other programs.

What I remember most about the process—being able to co-mentor peers. As one of the co-facilitators I was further along on my dissertation and had previously written a thesis. This allowed me to bring that experience to the table. I am also a really good listener and given that my research was about women in higher education (Political Science), I was well versed with a whole host of women in higher education issues. Personally, it was good to feel accountable to a group of other people who were my peers.

There is a different dynamic with your peers. They will not hold back their comments, but at the same time they are generous. I don’t know about you, but there were times that my heart would beat faster as I sat down to chat about my project with my advisor. And, she’s a really wonderful feminist scholar. When I would meet with the Let’s Finish women (yes, the crew were all women), I felt a sense of excited anticipation. Some of our meetings were about how to stay focused, what do when you’re suffering from writer’s block, and we would also review one another’s work.

It was a no bullshit zone, so at times things could get interesting. But, the conversations were always meant to help everyone move forward with their projects. We cheered one another’s successes and gave relationship advice if needed. The writing experience is an isolating one and sometimes you just need to have an audience to bounce your ideas off. I will always look back fondly at Let’s Finish. My words of advice to students working on a thesis or dissertation is that a good writing group is priceless—get another person or a group together and establish the expectations and then meet.