This site requires Javascript to be turned on. Please enable Javascript and reload the page.

Students in Service and Leadership at Harvard

Sung Kwang Oh - Blueprint for Action

Research Question:

This research project was primarily driven by the following question: How can we create greater opportunities for undergraduate input in the Government Department? In order to answer this question, I was faced with several other sub-questions:

What are the current structural opportunities for undergraduates to provide input in the Government Department?
What are potential alternative opportunities for undergraduates to provide input in the Government Department?
What are the current needs of the undergraduates?
What are the most appropriate structures for undergraduate input based on these needs?

Methods:

To answer these questions, my research consisted of semi-structured expert and empirical interviews with three groups of people: (1) the Government Department’s Undergraduate Office Administrators; (2) Graduate Student Association (GSA) former and current leaders and member; and (3) Government Undergraduate Concentrators.

Through my interviews with two of the Government Department’s Undergraduate Office Administrators as well as with the Chair of the Government Department, I hoped to examine the currently existing structures for undergraduate input and understand what sort of undergraduate input was currently coming in. Then, through three interviews with former and current leaders and members of the GSA, I observed a relevant structure for departmental input that undergraduates could emulate. Finally, through six empirical interviews with undergraduate concentrators in the Government department, I sought to understand what the current needs were for the undergraduates and to identify the most appropriate structures for undergraduate input to meet these needs.

While preparing for the empirical interviews with the Government concentrators, I engaged in the existing literature, and I learned that student representation often do not fully reflect the entire student body. With this in mind, I came away with a deep commitment to have my empirical interviewees be similarly as representative of the Government concentrators as possible. I interviewed students from all class years, ranging from sophomore (the year students declare their concentration) to super senior (those who have taken time off during college). I also sought to interview concentrators from various paths. For instance, I interviewed students who spent over half a decade in the military prior to coming to Harvard, transferred into Harvard in the middle of college, joint-concentrated in other subjects, changed concentrations multiple times, wrote a senior thesis, and did not write a senior thesis. Through these various perspectives and backgrounds, I hoped to collect a diverse interview dataset in an attempt to understand the needs of Government concentrators.

Key Findings:

Government Department Administrators
Some key takeaways from semi-structured expert interviews with the Chair of the Government Department as well as administrators in the Government Undergraduate Office:

The undergraduates are central to the Government Department: Through my interviews, it became apparent that the undergraduates are central to the mission of the Government Department. For instance, according to the Chair, a bulk of the department’s work is focused on undergraduate teaching and advising. This can be seen in the number of staff dedicated to helping undergraduate students. A substantial portion of the department’s staff is focused on undergraduates, especially when compared to graduate students. However, I learned there is an important reason for this focus on the undergraduates - the greater the number of concentrators, the more likely the Government department will receive more departmental funding to hire new faculty and staff.
Genuine care and effort to try to listen to undergraduate concentrators: The Undergraduate Office has made genuine efforts to engage with the undergraduate concentrators. They have several channels to receive undergraduate input, such as through annual surveys, Course Q scores, an online anonymous feedback form, and regularly scheduled office hours. At the request of some undergraduates, they also have recently created Affinity Groups, which gathers undergraduates from shared backgrounds and provides opportunities for the students to find community with each other. However, despite these efforts, the Government Department Administrators have expressed that it is difficult to get undergraduate engagement, particularly after coming back in-person this past year.
Realistic understanding of the current relationship with undergraduates: In my interviews, the administrators seemed to balance their hopes for greater undergraduate engagement with a realistic understanding of why undergraduates may not be participating as much as they hope. One administrator noted that it was likely that “undergraduates probably think that we don’t care,” despite their best efforts to demonstrate otherwise. Another member said that it might be that undergraduates might feel that they’re not welcomed, that the department is on a different wavelength, or that the department doesn’t listen to them. They also mentioned that the “easy answer” would be to simply say that undergraduates are too busy and don’t engage in the Government community because they find community elsewhere – through extracurricular activities such as Harvard Model UN or the International Relations Council.
Hopes to create mechanisms that are institutionalized and that students would value: Despite the difficulties they have had, the administrators genuinely hope to create greater engagement with undergraduates in the future and are open to exploring new ways that will allow for undergraduates to become a greater part of the department.

Graduate Student Association: Former and Current Leaders and Members
Some key takeaways from semi-structured expert interviews with a co-founder, a co-president, and a member of the Graduate Student Association (GSA):

Collective action is important for change: Every single interviewee mentioned this in some way or another. They mentioned that since organizing and creating the GSA in 2018, they have been able to achieve change that was previously not possible. They were able to put graduate student representatives on certain departmental committees, they helped get a dedicated Title IV liaison, and they encouraged greater focus on diversity and inclusion in departmental culture. They did note that some changes were more hard to come by - change surrounding curriculum, faculty hiring, and budgets were generally more difficult either because these decisions are made years in advance or because of rules from the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) that the general department has to follow. However, despite these difficulties, they emphasized that collective action was key to advocating for graduate students.
Symbiotic relationship with the Government Department: The current and former leaders of the GSA were quick to note that there existed a symbiotic relationship between the GSA and the Government Department. Among other responsibilities, the GSA works to fortify social and community life among graduate students, provide professional and academic resources to graduate students, and act as a cohesive voice on the graduate students’ wants and priorities. Without the GSA doing all this, these are all tasks and responsibilities that would otherwise fall on the department. As such, it is in the department’s favor to be receptive to the GSA, and the department has been largely supportive of the GSA. The Government Department, in turn, provides insight into the workings of the department and FAS at-large, and it also works to provide change and resources when possible.
Some limitations persist: Despite the relative success of the GSA in the four years since its founding, there are some limitations that they have noted. First, there seems to be tension between what the Government Department would be willing to do or provide for students and what FAS allows. In other words, there are governing FAS rules that constrains some of the changes that the Government Department would be open to implementing. Second, students are on a timeline. Because graduate students tend to finish their degrees in five to seven years, it is difficult to implement certain changes because (1) it takes time for the graduate students to get to know the department and (2) departmental decisions usually are made years in advance. Third, student involvement tends to taper off unless there are major concerns. During the height of the sexual harassment scandal, there was highly active participation by the graduate students. However, in more recent months and years, the graduate students have become less involved.

Government Department’s Undergraduate Concentrators
Some key takeaways from semi-structured empirical interviews with six undergraduate Government concentrators:

General lack of trust and sense of detachment from the Department: The undergraduate concentrators that were interviewed generally felt disconnected from the Undergraduate Office and the Government Department at-large. They were unfamiliar with the Director of Undergraduate Studies (DUS) - one super senior mentioned that they met the DUS for the first time when they were handing in their thesis. As a result of this unfamiliarity, the undergraduates generally seemed to lack trust in the Undergraduate Office and the work that they do for the undergraduates.
Want for greater sense of community: When asked about the community in the government department, multiple undergraduates responded in jest, asking if there even was a community to talk about. They went on to explain that the Government concentration experience seemed to revolve around one’s course load rather than the department itself. The concentrators felt more comfortable approaching their professors or peers in their classes, rather than the Undergraduate Office administrators (though Karen, the Coordinator of Undergraduate Studies stood out as an outlier) or their fellow concentrators. However, given that there are about 400 concentrators and about 3,000 undergraduates who take government courses (according to the Chair of the Government Department), it is not possible to rely on Government classes to be the sole form of community for Government concentrators. Most students desire greater opportunities to connect with fellow Government concentrators. They did note that they recognized that Affinity Groups were created with this in mind, but they felt that this was not sufficient. One student argued that the Affinity Groups were more isolating of minorities who already are largely isolated within the department. Instead of further segregating these students, the student felt that the department should make efforts to build a community that was accepting of everyone.
No central way to provide feedback: Students seemed to be largely unaware of any ways to give feedback to the Government Department. They mentioned that the only consistent way they were able to give feedback was through the Q scores at the end of the semester, but they recognized that this wasn’t departmental feedback but rather feedback on a course. They also mentioned that they sometimes saw feedback surveys for the department but that it didn’t seem to be consistent. Furthermore, they were doubtful that any feedback they give would really make a difference. They noted that they were unwilling to provide any substantive feedback unless they knew that the department would act on the input. Finally, students said that they were also hesitant to give substantial feedback directly to the Undergraduate Office because they were worried this feedback might be held against them. Because the Undergraduate Office controls certain funding opportunities as well as honors grades and more, the students worried that they would be punished for giving critical feedback.
Feeling a lack of support: Perhaps a result of the feeling of detachment from the department, the students interviewed indicated that they felt that they weren’t properly supported by the department. In fact, they said that they had to find support elsewhere, whether it was in other departments (for those who were joint concentrators or heavily involved in their secondary) or it was with their House advisors. They noted that they wished there were more events that would allow them to interface with the Undergraduate Office administrators and feel a better sense of support from them.

Proposal: Creating a Government Departmental Undergraduate Concentrators Association

Considering the overall success of the Graduate Student Association, the Government Department’s desire to institutionalize greater undergraduate engagement, and most importantly, the needs of the Government undergraduate concentrators, this research project proposes the creation of a Government Departmental Undergraduate Concentrators Association. The work of this body would focus on fulfilling the four main needs discussed in the previous section. As such, the Undergraduate Concentrators Association (U.C.A.) would have four primary responsibilities:

Collective Action: To address the general undergraduate confusion surrounding how to provide feedback or give input into the Government Department as well as the overall sentiment that their feedback does not really matter, the U.C.A. would act as a central location for undergraduates to give input. After collecting this information, the U.C.A. can advocate for undergraduate concerns and their priorities. Having a general body that advocates for students will also alleviate students’ concerns about receiving potential retaliation from the Department for providing any critical feedback.
Communication: In order to provide greater support to undergraduates and create a greater sense of community, the U.C.A. would also be a conduit of information and knowledge. By maintaining consistent communication with all the undergraduate Government concentrators either through a Slack page or another medium, the U.C.A. will be able to communicate information about classes, fellowships, new opportunities, or anything else that the undergraduate community cares about. This will give undergraduates a centralized way to receive any relevant information, which is something that many mentioned is currently missing. Having a way to communicate to the rest of the concentrators will also facilitate a greater sense of connectedness among the undergraduate Government community.
Community: Another major component of the U.C.A would be to plan and host events that builds a sense of community both among the undergraduates as well as with the rest of the Government department. By having an explicit focus on creating opportunities for undergraduates to engage with one another and with the department, the U.C.A will be able to facilitate a greater sense of belonging and support, thereby addressing the feelings of detachment and lack of trust of the Government Department.
Advisory Board: Having the U.C.A. perform the role of an advisory board for the Government Department will work towards bridging the gap that seems to exist between undergraduates and the rest of the department. By acting as the point of communication and by serving on departmental committees – similar to the GSA – the U.C.A. can ensure that undergraduates are able to get the level of support that they need while also increasing undergraduate trust in the department.

One important note that comes with this proposal is the tension that undergraduates seem to have between wanting a systematic, centralized way of having their voices heard and the skepticism of student representation in light of the recent “demolishing” of the Undergraduate Council. One respondent even mentioned that they would prefer to give the feedback themself rather than entrusting another to do so. Yet, despite this skepticism, everyone – including the student who gave this feedback – was grateful that this research project was being conducted. Some mentioned that they had never given feedback before because no one from the Government Department had ever asked for their thoughts. This seems to indicate that a proactive approach is needed, further highlighting the need for the U.C.A. Finally, students indicated that should they serve on such a body, a form of compensation would be necessary. Because serving on a body such as the U.C.A. would require substantial energy and effort, multiple students felt that it was appropriate for students on the U.C.A. should be compensated.

Conclusion:

This research project began with the hopes of understanding how we could create greater opportunities for undergraduate input in the Government Department. In my pursuit to answer this question, I have found that there is true potential for change. The Government Undergraduate Office seems eager to further engage the undergraduates, and the underclassmen seem excited at the prospect of further engagement. While I won’t be able to fully see through the implementation of this project because I will be graduating in a few weeks, I hope that the Undergraduate Office and underclassmen concentrators will work together to build on this proposal to create a Government Department that has greater undergraduate engagement, input, and community.

This page has paths: