A World Outside the Classroom: Understanding Faculty Perspectives on Electoral Engagement in the Classroom

Abstract

Colleges and universities serve as vital bridges between the state and citizens, providing fertile ground for nurturing democratic participation among students through the cultivation of civic knowledge, skills, and attitudes collectively known as electoral engagement. However, faculty members, responsible for implementing such initiatives, may not always view electoral engagement as essential to their curriculum. This study explores faculty motivations and reservations regarding electoral engagement in classrooms. Leveraging a novel data set of faculty responses, the research reveals at least two important findings. First, faculty members express greater interest when supported by colleagues, department chairs, and students within their institutions. Second, faculty confidence and past voting behavior influence their interest in electoral engagement initiatives. The article concludes with a brief exploration of how these insights can empower faculty nationwide to effectively nurture students as active contributors to our democratic process.

Keywords:

• faculty
• electoral
• engagement
• classroom
• students
• democracy
• vote

Disclosure statement

The author reports there are no competing interests to declare.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Rachael Houston, upon request.

Notes

1 The survey was reviewed by the institutional review board (ID: STUDY00007901) and met a category for exemption.

2 To obtain each of the 150 colleges and universities, the population of campuses (1,319 campuses total) was organized into three sectors by type of institution, and 10% of campuses in each sector were randomly selected. Additionally, to make sure MSIs are represented, a group of 93 MSIs was randomized and 19 were included in the sample (∼20% of total MSIs). The list was pulled on January 3, 2020. The states were also randomly selected. The states are Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

3 The faculty members were initially contacted on January 29, 2020. Two weeks after initial contact, faculty members were contacted for a second time with the same email request on February 12, 2020. The survey ended on February 26, 2020.

4 This is comparable to other surveys geared specifically toward faculty. See, for example, Schuldt and Totten (1994) and Michael (2007). In the discussion of online data collection, the college population (which includes faculty members) has been distinctively separated from non-college populations (Couper 2000).

5 These size ranges are drawn from The National Study of Learning, Voting, and Engagement.

6 In the survey, respondents were provided with the following racial options: white; black or African American; Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish; Asian; American Indian or Alaskan Native; and other. Of the total respondents, 438 identified as white; 35 as black or African American; 25 as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish; 23 as Asian; 6 as American Indian or Alaskan Native; and 18 as other. The decision to categorize this variable into two groups (white vs. non-white) holds methodological importance. Robust analyses across racial groups necessitate a larger and more balanced representation within each group. Future research is required to explore and distinguish the dynamics within each individual racial group.

7 Eleven preferred not to answer, one identified as transgender, and three identified as “other.” Due to the limited number of participants within these categories, these 15 individuals were omitted from the analysis for this specific question. There are not enough participants in these distinct gender identity categories to draw statistically meaningful conclusions. Though scholars like Albaugh et al. (2023) have noted significant voting differences among individuals in these categories, it is challenging to make definitive conclusions without an adequate sample size. Future research should focus on examining each of these identity groups individually.

8 The full model can be found in the Appendix.

9 Full models can be found in the Appendix.

10 Dependent variable = interest; independent variables = faculty support, chair support, student nonpartisan support, confidence, voting behavior.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Rachael Houston

Rachael Houston is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Texas Christian University. Her research lies in understanding how individuals learn, shape their opinions, and perceive the U.S. Supreme Court, with a specific emphasis on the media’s role in shaping public perceptions. In addition to her research, Houston teaches various courses in public law, including Judicial Politics, Constitutional Law: Powers, Constitutional Law: Rights and Liberties, Introduction to Public Law, and Equality Under the Law. She is also deeply passionate about involving college students in elections. Houston has contributed to multiple nonprofit initiatives aimed at promoting civic engagement among college students.