I have made progress in three areas of my dissertation: (1) Interviewing key people, (2) Learning what actually happened during the period I am researching, and (3) Modifying my conceptual framework and theoretical approach to analyze what actually happened. (Interviewing key people) I talked with Jim Leach, former Republican Congressman from Iowa, back in 2008. I talked with Michael Fonte, former Policy Analyst with FAPA, in October 2008. Between then and July 2009 I spoke with a number of professors about how to best understand the topic. After July I spoke with Cindy Fogelman, who use to work on Rep. Leach's staff. Then I talked with Richard Bush, who worked on Stephen Solarz's staff (he was a Democratic Congressman from New York). I spoke with Robert Ross, a China Scholar at Boston College, and Robert Sutter, a China Scholar at Georgetown University. I spoke with Nancy Soderberg, who worked on Senator Kennedy's staff. I spoke with Edward Friedman, who worked with Rep. Solarz. I also found audio presentations of Fulton Armstrong, who worked with Rep. Leach, and Thomas Hughes, who was Senator Claiborne Pell's (R-RI) Chief of Staff.
What Actually Happened: I have learned that the causal direction is the opposite of what I thought. I had assumed, like most American scholars, that an interest group organizes, builds strength, and then puts pressure on elected officials to do its bidding. Thus, I thought of Congress as a passive organization. It turns out that Congress, specifically Rep. Solarz, was the organizer, and that this has precedents. After the Taiwan Relations Act passed, members of Congress and their staff who had personal connections and interest in Asia, human rights, and democracy, started to look for ways to make the US-Taiwan relationship more substantive. The Gang of Four (Leach, Solarz, Pell and Kennedy) decided to use their positions to relate directly to the people and government of the Republic of China on Taiwan in order to convince government officials on Taiwan to promote democracy and human rights. Sen. Pell had a great relationship with Mark Chen, one of the presidents of FAPA. Rep. Solarz had a relationship with Trong Chai, a founder of FAPA. Rep. Leach had a relationship with Peng Ming-Min, another FAPA president. Sen. Kennedy had a friendship with Kenjohn Wang, who helped buy FAPA's real estate and organized a fundraiser for Kennedy's presidential campaign in 1980. FAPA became the mediator between these politicians and their staff on one hand, and Taiwanese organizations and politicians on the other hand. What made FAPA the mediator? Unlike other Taiwanese-American organizations, it knew the proper language for getting along with Congress, and its leaders had good relationships with the politicians and their staff.
So, I have been forced to amend my conceptual framework to account for this reality. Instead of using Social Capital to explain how a small group of Taiwanese-Americans managed to be so influential in Congress, I am using Political Capital to explain how a small number of politicians in Congress (4) used their subcommittee positions to hold hearings and press conferences, and pass resolutions that made news in Taiwan and influenced Taiwan's government. The theory has also changed. Instead of thinking that any group can succeed just by using Social Capital in the right way, I am now arguing that Political Capital is part of a combination of factors that must occur simultaneously to have the desired impact. These factors include: (1) The political and international environment, which makes it easier or more difficult for specific groups or members of Congress to get a hearing and pass legislation; (2) The qualities of the specific politicians, including their level of commitment to a specific issue and their influence in Congress; (3) The effectiveness of interest groups, which includes social capital, financial contributions, and high-quality information presented at hearings or to Congressional staff. When all three of these variables combine, you get a policy output in the form of a resolution or a law.
This happened in two similar cases: Congressional policy toward South Africa, especially passing a sanctions law over the veto of President Reagan in 1986. Transnational ties connected members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) to Apartheid in South Africa. In this case it was the African Affairs subcommittee instead of the Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, but the same person, Stephen Solarz, was involved. The difference between this case and the case of Taiwan is that the CBC had been trying since 1969 to get a sanctions bill passed, without success. Congressman Charles Diggs (D-MI), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, had to literally start a grassroots movement to get constituents to put pressure on members of the CBC before there was enough momentum to pass the legislation. In the case of Taiwan, FAPA already had the grassroots movement, making Congress' job much easier and faster.
The other case is Cambodia. Solarz was involved here as well, along with Sen. Pell. Congress passed a law promoting democracy in Cambodia, and Rep. Solarz was a critical part of that process. However, Cambodian-Americans were ineffective because they were disorganized, and lacked money and votes.
So, I have learned that you don't really need a grassroots organization as long as you have Congressional representatives with a great deal of influence in Congress (political capital) who chair the appropriate subcommittees and work in an environment that is very favorable to their specific causes. You need at least two out of the three elements for policy outputs. If you have the right environment and the effective interest group, but no obvious Congressional champion, the interest group can easily find a champion by saying they have the means to remove him from office. If you have the Congressional champion and the interest group, but not the right environment, the policy output is still possible, but it will take longer as the political entrepreneur and the interest group slowly build support. If you have the right environment and the Congressional champion, without a supporting interest group, you can get policy out put if the politician is committed to a region or a specific ideology, but the long-term support for the specific region will vanish after the initial success.
Finally, in addition to all these discoveries, I have been talking to friends and colleagues about what it means to be a professor. I have discovered what my likely path will be. I know now that the only reason why I want to become a tenured professor at a college is to build credibility for my activities outside of the college. I would much rather use my knowledge and skills to help various non-profit groups and have my own television or radio show than teach 3-4 classes a semester and publish in journals no one reads just for the sake of getting tenure. If i could teach, publish, help non-profit groups and have my own TV show, that would be ideal. But there isn't enough time in a day, week, or month, to do all of those well. This is especially the case because being a tenure-track professor is so much more than just teaching classes and publishing. There's advising student groups; serving in various committees; appearing at department and college functions, and generally being in the academic community. I would love to do all those things if, and only if, I know that the college I teach at is a critical member of the larger community, and that decisions made on committees affect the residents of a town or city. However, I know that no matter where I teach the college will most likely not be a major force in the larger community, and thus the activities of the committee and the student body will only affect the college itself. If I am going to serve on committees (and I know I will have to eventually) I would much rather do it in an environment that I know will have an impact, such as a city council, a state legislature, or even the US Congress.
A key conversation has really impacted me. I spoke with Maggie Gray, who teaches at Adelphi University after getting her Ph.D. in 2006. She's a migrant labor activist, and she even met her husband at a labor rally. Her dissertation is on migrant labor and transnational labor organizations. Thus, she fits my model of the scholar-activist. She told me, point-blank, that if I apply to a university I can emphasize the number and variety of classes I have taught (40 at 13 colleges as of Spring 2010), and my interests in helping the university be an active member of the larger community, through such tools as service-learning. However, I must not say that I am a scholar-activist in any application letter because it will be tossed out right away. Some colleges, she said, do have faculty who are scholar-activists, but they emphasize the scholarship. Most important, she said that her activist days have been put on hold because she is so busy being a college professor, and she doesn't have the time anymore to do those activities. But (and this is what really caught my ear), if I am an activist to any extent in a college environment, I really have to pay attention to whether it will count toward tenure or not. This is because, until I get tenure I really have to pay attention to that tenure clock (about 6 years at most colleges). That startled me: An activist turned scholar told me essentially to use activism to get tenure instead of using tenure to become a better activist.
So, after thinking about it, I decided that I have been putting my practitioner abilities on hold for about 8 years while I have been in graduate school, and so now I really need to apply my knowledge in specific environments in order to develop my skills as an activist. I could wait another 6 years to get tenure and then become an activist, but I don't want to wait any more. I want to go work for the government and/or non-profit organizations so that I can apply what I have learned immediately. More important, I already know there is a low probability of anyone reading my dissertation after I complete it. I will have to wait at least 2 more years to publish my first journal article, and I know even fewer people will likely read that. I need to complete this dissertation to get my Ph.D, which will make me more employable and credible for the things I want to do with my life. A journal article won't add value to my life any any way, though it will add value to my professional prospects. So, I would like to go immediately into a job that I know will "make a difference".
One example I have found is Jay Winik. He completed his Ph.D. at Yale and wrote his dissertation on Congressional policy toward Cambodia. he then worked for the government and actually wrote some key policies regarding Cambodia. After that he left public service and is now writing highly-regarded history books that make the New York Times' Best Sellers list. I am thinking that this may be a model for my activities, except instead of writing history books I could fulfill my dream of having a TV show that helps people to become social entrepreneurs.
On this last front, I have had some great developments. I am now teaching a class at Northeastern University on Corporate Social Responsibility. I have decided that instead of aiming for a teaching position in a political science department at a college, I would make a better fit at a business college or a graduate school of business, where I could help develop classes and entire programs that train the students to be social entrepreneurs. I have already looked at Harvard Business School and discovered that they employed professors with Political Science Ph.D.s and, most important, they have an annual conference on Social Entrepreneurship and Social Innovation. I would love to go teach at a college like that. So, I have decided that if I can find such a college, I will have no problem going on the tenure-track there. I know that after getting tenure I will be able to turn the college into a producer of social entrepreneurs, and the business school into a place where employers and managers learn how to implement humane policies. Then, I could use my credential as a business school professor to teach people how to become social entrepreneurs!
No comments:
Post a Comment