the international variation in COVID-19 mortality

Posted on April 14, 2021 by Peter

The New York Times published a chart showing the number of reported COVID-19 deaths per capita and deaths above normal this year for selected countries. My graph demonstrates that the two variables correlate quite well–except in Russia. That is circumstantial evidence that Russia (and only Russia, among these countries) is failing to report COVID-19 deaths, as Anton Troianovski suggests in the reported article.

I wanted to check this correlation because I am interested in what explains the very large differences in national death rates. An explanation is not at all obvious. Consider these statistics:

country	deaths Above Normal	COVID-19 DEAThs per 100k	Social Welfare Spending (%GDP)	Health Care Spending Per Capita (PPP $US)	Pop Density / Square KM	Urban Pop. %	Median Age	Index of Stringency of COVID-19 regulations
Russia	28%	39	14%	$ 1,488.00	9	75%	40.3	36.57
Spain	23%	106	25%	$ 3,576.00	92	81%	43.9	69.44
Italy	19%	92	28%	$ 3,624.00	200	71%	46.5	80.56
U.K.	17%	124	21%	$ 4,619.00	281	84%	40.6	75.93
U.S.	17%	96	19%	$ 10,623.00	36	82%	38.5	58.8
Poland	16%	45	21%	$ 2,015.00	121	60%	41.9	75
Czech Rep.	15%	78	19%	$ 3,040.00	136	74%	43.3	81.48
Switzerland	13%	84	17%	$ 8,113.00	211	74%	42.7	60.19
Sweden	12%	83	25%	$ 5,828.00	23	88%	41.1	69.44
France	12%	83	31%	$ 5,250.00	119	81%	41.7	78.8
Netherlands	12%	61	16%	$ 5,634.00	410	92%	42.8	75
Portugal	12%	54	23%	$ 3,242.00	110	66%	44.6	65.74
Austria	12%	50	27%	$ 5,879.00	108	59%	44.5	81.48
Hungary	7%	48	18%	$ 2,115.00	104	72%	43.6	79.63
Finland	4%	9	29%	$ 4,457.00	16	88%	42.8	52.31
Germany	3%	27	26%	$ 6,098.00	235	77$	47.8	75
Sources	New York Times	New York Times	OECD	WHO	World Population Review	World Bank	CIA World Fact Book	This Oxford tracker.

The first point you may notice is a very high variation in many of these indicators. The excess death rate is 20 percentage-points worse in Spain than Germany. The UK has lost almost 14 times more people per capita to COVID-19 than Finland. France spends almost twice as much of its GDP on social welfare as the nearby Netherlands. Germany is 26 times more dense than Russia. Sweden is far more urban than Austria. Americans spend an average of five times more on healthcare than Hungarians. The only column with a small range is age expectancy.

The second point is that none of these variables correlates impressively with COVID-19 deaths. In a simple OLS regression, nothing comes anywhere near statistical significance.

It far from obvious why some countries have fared so much better or worse than the others. This is a smallish sample of countries (the only ones for which the NYT presented excess deaths) and maybe patterns would emerge in a larger sample. However, the situation seems noisy because so many variables may matter, and they can push in different directions in the same country.

For instance, Anne Applebaum recently wrote, “if the United States is very, very bad at social trust and public-health systems, it is very, very good at large-scale logistics.” I would gloss her second point this way: once the US government pays big companies a lot of money to do something, we often see impressive results. In this case, firms like Pfizer, FedEx, and CVS are administering millions of doses of vaccine per day with federal support. Yet we do a relatively bad job at changing behavior en masse because we tend to be distrustful and hyper-individualistic. The shifting performance of the US compared to other countries probably reflects these cross-pressures–and every other country has its own mix.

Florida’s New Civics Standards Released for Public Comment

Posted on April 14, 2021 by stevemasy

Good morning, friends. Last Friday, the Florida Department of Education released the new civics, character education, and Holocaust education standards for public comment. While you should review all of the standards and provide feedback, let’s focus on the new and revised civics benchmarks. This post provides access to an overview chart for each set of civics standards. You can provide feedback on these changes here. Feedback is open until April 23rd. Let’s start with K-5.

K-5 Civics Standards Comparison Chart

The most significant changes, besides rewording and merging, is an increased emphasis on patriotism and symbols of both Florida and the US. These are both significantly expanded in the revised/new benchmarks.

6th (World) and 8th (US) Civics Standards Comparison Chart

There are two new 6th grade benchmarks; one deals with the rule of law and the other deals with the leadership and civic virtues of Roman leaders.
The most significant changes occur at 8th grade (US History). There is a whole new standard 3, and significant reorganizing of the benchmarks as a result. There are 4 new benchmarks. one deals with comparing the US to other nations; one compares the responsibilities of citizens at different levels of government; one deals with rule of law; one deals with changes to the Florida Constitution between 1838 and 1868.

7th Grade Civics Standards Comparison Chart

The most significant changes to note (and keep in mind that these are not all the proposed changes):
1.9 now includes ancient law codes in discussion of rule of law (10 Commandments, Hammurabi, 12 Tables);
NEW benchmark 1.10 adds large number of additional documents and asks about influence of english constitution and common law, republicanism, religion (Hebraic and Christian) and enlightenment ideas;
NEW benchmark 1.11 moves the 6th grade Greco-Roman stuff to 7th as well
NEW benchmark 1.12 has students recognize Judeo-Christian values and their influence on the Founding and documents
NEW 2.5 for jury system, moved from original 3.11
2.8 (political parties) has been completely eliminated
2.9 now only addresses constitutional qualifications for office
2.14 Conduct a service project is eliminated
3.1 changes from comparing different forms of govt to analyzing advantages of US constitutional republic as compared to other forms
3.2 changes from comparing systems to explaining advantages of federal system over other forms
3.6 (evaluate rights and their impact) deleted and merged with others
3.9 Illustrate the lawmaking process deleted
3.12 Dred Scott added to cases
NEW 3.13 explains advantages of capitalism and free market over socialism and communism
4.1 domestic and foreign policy deletes 2 clarifications
4.2 international orgs deletes 1 clarification and merges two others
NEW 4.4 adds Electoral College
NEW 4.5 has students explain how governing philosophy of US contributes to nation’s success

9-12 Civics Standards Comparison Chart

The following is a list of the most significant changes (**please note that this does not include everything you will see in the document linked above**):
1.1 has been completely revised. students are focusing on the arguments in the Federalist Papers instead of evaluating, taking positions, and defending positions on principles.
1.2 explicitly emphasizes the Enlightenment and adds additional ideas students should know
1.3 changes from evaluate ideals and principles to analyze and changes language to state constitutional republic instead of democracy
NEW Benchmark (similar as new 7.C.1.12): SS.912.C.1.5 Analyze the influence of Judeo-Christian values on America’s Founding ideals and documents.• Students will recognize Judeo-Christian principles of law and government in primary sources (e.g., rule of law, God-given rights, equality of mankind, limited
*government, separation of powers, consent of the governed) in primary sources to including but not limited to, the Articles, Lawes and Orders, Divine, Politique and*
*Martiall for the Colony in Virginea (1610-1611); Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1639); Massachusetts Body of Liberties (1641); Constitution of*
*Massachusetts (1780))*
2.3 (responsibilities of citizens) has some major changes to the clarifications
2.4 (public good) deletes several clarifications
2.5 (service project) deleted completely
original 2.9 (expansion of rights and liberties) is now 2.8 has merged most clarifications into one single clarification and removed parentheticals
original 2.11 (analyze public policy solutions) merged with original 2.10 (monitor public issues) to create new 2.9
original 2.15 (political parties, interest groups, media, individuals, public policy) is now 2.13 and reduced to a single clarification looking at historical examples. benchmark language also changed to simply explaining impact.
3.5 (regulatory agencies) changed significantly to look at interaction; several clarifications deleted, replaced with simply identification and explain purpose and effect.
3.8 (role of judges) has an error (duplicate clarifications). I THINK there will be no changes.
3.10 Roe v Wade deleted from case list, new clarification relating to Bill of Rights
3.12 (judicial decision making process) revised from simulate to explain; most original clarifications deleted.
3.15 changed significantly to focus on how constitution protects freedom and liberty
NEW 3.16 *SS.912.C.3.16 Explain how issues between Florida, other states and the federal government are resolved.● Students will explain the concept of federalism as it applies to each issue.*
*● Students will use historical and issue-based scenarios to demonstrate understanding of how disputes between Florida, other states and the federal government are*
*resolved (e.g., water rights arguments between Florida and Georgia, federal and state conflict over rights to adjacent waters and seabeds, civil rights)*
4.1 changed SIGNIFICANTLY from ‘explain how the world’s nations are governed differently’ to SS.912.C.4.1 Analyze the advantages of the United States constitutional republic and free market economic system over authoritarianism (e.g., autocratic or oligarchic) and government-controlled economic systems (e.g., socialism and communism
4.3 changed significantly from ‘assess human rights policies of the US and other countries to *SS.912.C.4.3 Explain how United States foreign policy protects human rights around the world*
NEW4.5 is the original 7.C.4.1 (domestic and foreign policy)
NEW 4.6 is similar to new 7.C.4.5: SS.912.C.4.6 Analyze how the governing philosophy of the United States contributes to the nation’s success.● Students will compare the success of the United States to the success or failure of other nations with regard to their governing philosophies.
*● Students will objectively analyze the past and present effects of various governing philosophies.*
*● Students will justify their conclusions about the likely future effects of various governing philosophies*.

**Again, these are the ‘highlights’. Please review the linked charts above and the draft document to see a comparison of the changes as a whole.**

You can provide feedback on these changes here. Feedback is open until April 23rd!

Questions on the standards should be directed to Michael DiPierro, Director of Standards at FDOE.

Civvy’s Celebrate Best in Civic Collaboration April 19th!

Posted on April 14, 2021 by Isabella Guzman

Don’t miss out on the chance to celebrate the 4th American Civic Collaborations Award Ceremony! Since it’s very beginning, the Civvys have highlighted outstanding efforts of civic collaboration impacts in national, local and youth communities. The Civvys are the only national awards program dedicated to exalt projects that emphasize working together across divides to strengthen communities and empower citizens, this year with an added focus on building a more diverse and equitable America.

This year, NCDD is proud to be a partner in national award finalist, the With the People Initiative, coordinated by the National Issues Forums Institute. We’re excited this effort is being recognized and look forward to celebrating it an all the finalists at the ceremony!

The event is free, open to the public and will be streamed on Monday April 19th from 7:00- 8:00 ET.

TO ATTEND RSVP HERE

To view the list of all impressive finalists read below or find the original invitation here.

Attend the 4th Annual Civvys Awards Ceremony

Monday, April 19th, 2021 at 7:00 – 8:00pm ET

You are cordially invited to attend the virtual awards ceremony for the 4th annual American Civic Collaboration Awards, or “Civvys,” highlighting exemplary efforts that worked to repair and improve our nation in 2020.

More than ever, in a moment when democracy and community – the fabric of our nation – are stretching at the seams, we look to initiatives like these to work across divides and lead the way in building a stronger, fairer America.

From a record number of inspiring nominees, a substantial set of honorable mentions paving the path forward, and a set of best-in-class finalists, this year’s Civvys winners represent the most collaborative, highest impact and most scalable initiatives from 2020.

Join the livestreamed award ceremony on Monday, April 19th at 7pm ET, 6pm CT or 4pm PT, to learn about their work, congratulate all of our finalists and winners, and hear from the Civvys Review Committee on these inspiring case studies of democracy in action.

This event is virtual. Attendance is free and open to the public.

RSVP TO ATTEND

Meet The Civvys Finalists
Please join us in congratulating all finalists and honorable mentions!

National Category
Braven
The Civic Responsibility Project
Hidden Common Ground Initiative and Strange Bedfellows Series from Public Agenda and USA Today with The National Issues Forums Network and the America Amplified Public Media Consortium
Issue Voter and Maria Yuan
Millenial Action Project
With the People, coordinated by National Issues Forums Institute

Local Category
Akron Civic Commons (Akron, OH)
Interfaith Council of Metro DC (Washington, DC)
Pandemic Voting Project, organized by NAACP (Missouri State Conference) and Show Me Integrity (Missouri)
SA2020 (San Antonio, TX)
STL Approves (St. Louis, MO)
Tarrant County College Civic Engagement District Work Team (Fort Worth, TX)
Youth Category
Changeist
The Conversationalist
DoSomething.org’s “Our 2020 Vision” campaign
Green Our Planet
KidsVotingDurham
Student PIRGS New Voters project, including specifically nominated Eckerd College, California Student Vote and NAACP Youth and College Division initiatives
See All Finalists and Honorable Mentions

About The Civvys
The Civvys are the only national awards program dedicated to celebrating projects that emphasize working together across divides to strengthen communities and empower citizens, this year with an added focus on building a more diverse and equitable America.

Find the original version of this post on the American Civic Collaborations Awards’ site at: www.civvys.org/

a German/US civic education discussion

Posted on April 13, 2021 by Peter

At a free online event on April 20th 2021, 5-6pm (Central European Time) / 11–noon (US Eastern Time), Bettina Heinrich, Professor of Social Work and Culture Work at the Protestant University of Applied Sciences Ludwigsburg, and I will talk about concepts, infrastructures and approaches for civics/political education in our respective countries, with time for questions from the audience.

For Americans who have not especially thought about civic education in the Federal Republic of Germany, here are some reasons you might be interested: Germany has a very impressive system of adult education that serves a wide range of people and includes elements of democratic education. The USA had a positive influence on Germany democratic education after WWII, just as German models had influenced American higher education in the 1800s and early 1900s. In other words, the two countries are more closely linked that you might think. Nevertheless, there are intriguing differences between “civics” in the US and politische Bildung in Germany. Finally, Germany tends to do an impressive job of addressing the evils of the past. Without equating or even comparing historical evils, we can learn from their experience as we reckon with our own history.

Registration information here: https://tece-usde.org/kick-off-event-announced/

Upcoming Florida Council for the Social Studies Webinar: THE GREAT MIGRATION AND THE ROOTS OF WEALTH INEQUALITY

Posted on April 12, 2021 by stevemasy

Good afternoon, friends in Civics and Social Studies! I just wanted to share with you a really interesting upcoming webinar for members of the Florida Council for the Social Studies. Our friends at FCSS will be joined by Brett Burkey of the Florida Council on Economic Education to discuss the Great Migration and the Roots of Wealth Inequality. You can download the flyer below or simply head over to the Florida Council for the Social Studies website to register!

Download the flyer here!Download

sighs, short and frequent, were exhaled

Posted on April 12, 2021 by Peter

April is the cruellest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.

I thought of the opening of the “Waste Land” during an international Zoom call with a dozen lovely people, as they described how spring is breaking in their respective countries during this pandemic year.

If your mind turns to extraordinarily famous classics at such moments, you may be both pretentious and unimaginative. Then again, sometimes a new situation provokes a new look at a canonical text that has become a cliché from too much repetition.

Both T.S. and Vivienne Eliot contracted the Spanish ‘flu during the global pandemic. That experience, along with the First World War, might be in the background of his 1922 poem. Rereading it during a respiratory epidemic prompts new interpretations of passages like this one:

Unreal City,
Under the brown fog of a winter dawn,
A crowd flowed over London Bridge, so many,
I had not thought death had undone so many.
Sighs, short and infrequent, were exhaled,
And each man fixed his eyes before his feet.

Even the phrase “Madame Sosostris, famous clairvoyante, / Had a bad cold …” has new implications when read during COVID-19.

As for the opening, the combination of “memory and desire” seems apt for our moment, when many familiar experiences have become distant memories that we yearn to repeat. Lilacs look and smell lovely, but their springtime “breeding” may be a painful process. Each of the first three enjambed lines splits a participle from its object, creating a series of false starts. Are we moving again?

Eliot is surely responding to the cheerful opening of the first great long poem in English:

Whan that Aprille with his shoures soote,
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote,
And bathed every veyne in swich licóur
Of which vertú engendred is the flour ...

However, the opening of “The Waste Land” depicts rebirth as cruel.

Later, Roethke will ask …

This urge, wrestle, resurrection of dry sticks,
Cut stems struggling to put down feet.
What saint strained so much,
Rose on such lopped limbs to a new life?
 -- Theodore Roethke, from "The Lost Son and Other Poems" (1948)

Eliot’s entitles his whole first section “The Burial of the Dead,” referring, perhaps, to that rite from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. The Anglican prayer emphasizes peaceful rest followed by joyous resurrection: “Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord …” In contrast, I think Eliot’s narrator adopts a tone of metaphysical pessimism, as in classical Buddhism, Schopenhauer, or Silenus’ Greek phrase: “for humans, the best is not to be born at all, not to partake of nature’s excellence; not to be is best.”

This does not mean that pessimism is the spirit of the whole poem, which deliberately presents many voices and perspectives as Eliot portrays a metropolis in the aftermath of trauma.

In fact, it’s worth recovering an alternative to pessimism from the same poem. Apparently, the sequence Datta, Dayadhvam, Damyata (quoting an Upanishad) means: “be self-controlled, be charitable, and be compassionate.” Eliot presents that advice in a passage that is liquid, when most of the poem is bone-dry, and calm, when most of it feels tormented:

Damyata: The boat responded
Gaily, to the hand expert with sail and oar
The sea was calm, your heart would have responded
Gaily, when invited, beating obedient
To controlling hands.

And the whole work ends with the mantra “Shantih. shantih. shantih” (or “peace. peace. peace.”) So may it be.

the toll of many-to-many communications

Posted on April 8, 2021 by Peter

Let’s assume that we hope to get a response whenever we say something to another person. Because of that desire, we do not feel right unless we respond whenever others address us. These tendencies would naturally arise among social animals.*

But then imagine that it becomes very easy to send one message to many people at once. This has been the case since the rise of email. Instinctively, we are going to experience each message that we receive from a human sender as a bid for our individual attention. If we fail to reply promptly, we are likely to feel bad. We have rejected the bid.

The problem is not the electronic medium or the speed of transmission. To type a message takes at least as much time as turning to someone and saying something. The problem is the simultaneous delivery of the same individual-looking message to multiple recipients. Almost everyone perceives the sheer number of incoming messages as a burden. Failure to respond in a timely way feels uncaring.

Social media feels different to me. Posting something in a forum is like speaking to an audience or an assembly. The speaker doesn’t expect each listener to reply separately, and therefore listeners don’t feel obliged to meet that expectation. The particular source of stress created by email (and its successors) is the ability to deliver one message separately to many people as if we were addressing each one individually, only at a much faster rate.

Please go ahead and email me; I am happy to hear from you. I might even suffer FOMO if you leave me off your messages. The problem is systemic and would require a collective solution.

*I’m pretty sure I read a journalistic article making this point, and citing experts. I have not been able to find it again.

TWO Great Upcoming Lou Frey Institute/FJCC Webinars!

Posted on April 8, 2021 by stevemasy

Good morning, friends! It gives me great pleasure to share with you two upcoming webinars.

First, on April 28th, we will be hosting three experts in Holocaust education to preview a new series of lessons that can be used to teach the Holocaust in the 6-12 classroom. We are grateful for Dr. Fine, Professor Carter, and Ms. Adkinson for their hard work on these lessons and their willingness to share them during the webinar!

You can access the flier to register here.

Download

Our second webinar, this one in May, brings back great friend of the Institute, Dr. Charlie Flanagan!

You can access the flier to register for THIS one here!

Download

If you have any questions, please feel free to shoot us an email and let us know! Hope that you can join us!

Essential Conversations – Weekly Practice for Leaders

Posted on April 8, 2021 by Isabella Guzman

Essential Conversations is celebrating one year! Essential Conversations was created by the Center for Purposeful Leadership as a response to the disruption felt worldwide with the events of 2020, in the hopes of engaging and activating leaders. If you haven’t checked it out yet, Essential Conversations is a weekly event with the purpose of hosting provocative and evocative conversations, interactive breakouts, and community conversations to equip you with strategies, inspiration and ideas to create change and innovation needed for coherence, resilience and positive impact. Anyone looking to create a positive impact in their family, community or organizational circles are welcomed to these 1.5 hour conversations.

Additional details on upcoming sessions and to register read below or navigate to the original post here.

What are the Essential Conversations?

Every Monday, we convene a conversation with either a Conversation Starter or community conversation addressing these questions:

What is a positive response in times of extreme disruption?
As one who steps forward to help, how are you sustained and renewed?

The Design: Each 1.5-hour convergence follows the structure of the 9-Steps Convening Wheel.

Create the Container together
Hear All the Voices
Hear an Essential Conversation from a Conversation Starter
Take that conversation into Creation via a Wisdom Circle (breakout group)
Have Community Circle
Close with a Commitment to [Positive] Action.

Who attends: Anyone who wants to step forward to make a positive impact in your family, community or organization.
Cost: Free/no charge. Contributions to support this initiative are welcome.

The Essential Conversations provide tools and practices to help you move from Fragile to Agile and from Reaction to Response

Purpose: Our weekly program of provocative and evocative conversations, interactive breakouts, and community conversations will inspire you and equip you with strategies, inspiration and ideas to create change and innovation needed to being coherence, resilience and positive impact.

We launched in March 2020 to activate leaders in response to the massive disruption we and the world were experiencing.

In community, with shared depth and intimacy, we discover resilience, love, and focus to stay present to what is needed each week. Through collaborative reflection, discover collaborative action towards positive impact.

Begin your week, in a community of support and collaboration, by setting your intention to have a positive impact and bring people together for the highest possible outcome of whatever you are engaged in.

EVENT DETAILS & REGISTRATION

Find the original version of this event on the Center for Purposeful Leadership’s site at: www.centerforpurposefulleadership.com/essential-conversations

research jobs at Tisch College

Posted on April 6, 2021 by Peter

The Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life prepares students in all fields of study for lifetimes of active citizenship. Tisch College promotes new knowledge in the field and applies this knowledge to evidence-based practice in programs, community partnerships, and advocacy efforts. Central to the university’s mission, the college offers Tufts’ students opportunities to engage in meaningful community building, civic and political experiences, and explore commitments to civic participation.

These researcher positions are open at Tisch:

Senior Researcher – CIRCLE, Tisch College

CIRCLE, the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning & Engagement, is a non-partisan, independent research organization focused on youth civic engagement in the United States. We conduct extensive research on youth participation, and we leverage that research to improve opportunities for all young people to acquire and use the skills and knowledge they need to meaningfully participate in civic life. In all our work, we are especially concerned with understanding, addressing, and ultimately eliminating the systemic barriers that keep some young people marginalized from and underrepresented in civic life. Our research informs policy and practice and drive substantive change–whether in the classroom, state laws, the county clerk’s office, or the community organization–that promotes stronger youth development and a more inclusive and prosperous society.

Responsibilities include serving as the lead quantitative researcher on a range of research projects that may include strategies such as secondary data-analysis, large dataset creation/analysis, literature reviews, field experiments, and development of original surveys. The Senior Researcher’s tasks include producing analytic plans, methodology documentation, datasets, reports, fact sheets, formal and informal research briefings, often in close collaboration with CIRCLE colleagues. The Senior Researcher will assist with research grant proposal writing, especially with methodology and measurement sections. She/They/he will occasionally represent CIRCLE at conferences, practitioner forums, and press events. The Senior Researcher will collaborate with colleagues who represent multiple disciplines, backgrounds and positions and provide input and assistance, as well as peer training to other CIRCLE staff who produce and translate research (quantitative and qualitative). This staff member will report to the Director of CIRCLE (Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg), who reports to the Associate Dean of Tisch College, Diane Ryan.

Apply here.

Associate Researcher – Tisch College

The Cooperative Election Study (CES) is a large-scale academic election survey funded by the National Science Foundation and housed at Tufts University and Harvard University. The study is built on the collaboration of research teams from dozens of different academic institutions. Since its inception, the CES has involved more than 100 different research teams and hundreds of faculty and student researchers, and it has conducted interviews with over 400,000 American adults. The data from this project are used widely by researchers, journalists, and members of the public to understand American elections and public opinion.

THS IS A ONE-YEAR GRANT SUPPORTED TERM POSITION WITH NO CURRENT FUNDING FOR CONTINUATION. The Associate Researcher will assist with completing the data collection, organization, and analysis of data from the 2020 Cooperative Election Study. The Associate Researcher will also aid the coordination of the project, the development of educational materials, the design and analysis of future surveys, and the dissemination of results. Among other things, the Associate Researcher will help to create the codebook and guide for the 2020 CES, will respond to request and inquiries from researchers and reporters wishing to use the data, and will collaborate with the principal investigators on analyzing data from the 2020 CES. The Associate Researcher will also have the opportunity to engage in collaborative academic research projects with the CES team. The Associate Researcher will report to the Principal Investigator (Professor Brian Schaffner), based on the Medford/Somerville Tufts University Campus. This is an ideal position for someone interested in gaining research experience in political science or survey research.

Basic Requirements:

REQUIRED:

Bachelor’s degree
Competency using statistical software such as R or Stata
Strong organizational and time management skills. Ability to manage multiple concurrent projects and competing deadlines

OTHER:

Project management skills
Strong oral and written communication skills
Demonstrated customer service or relationship management experience
Strong analytic and problem-solving skills
Ability to maintain attention to detail
Experience working with groups of people representing diverse identities and backgrounds

Preferred Qualifications:

Familiarity with Qualtrics software.
Experience analyzing public opinion data from surveys
Strong interest in American public opinion and survey methodology

Apply here.

Postdoctoral Fellowship in Civic Science

This postdoctoral fellowship is offered in partnership with the Charles F. Kettering Foundation in Dayton, OH and involves some work at Kettering’s offices in Dayton as well as full-time employment at Tufts in the Boston area. The term is the 2021-22 academic year (June 1, 2021-May 31, 2022).

The Tisch College Civic Science initiative (https://tischcollege.tufts.edu/civic-studies/civic-science), led by Dr. Peter Levine and Dr. Samantha Fried, aims to reframe the relationships among scientists and scientific institutions, institutions of higher education, the state, the media and the public. It also asks about the relationships and distinctions among those institutions, historically and today. With this context in mind, Civic Science seeks to…

Reconfigure the national conversation on divisive and complex issues that are both scientific and political in nature, thereby connecting scientific institutions, research, and publications to people’s values, beliefs, and choices.
Define and advance the public good in science, thereby finding ways for scientific institutions to better serve communities.
Explore the concept of knowledge as a commons (or common-pool resource), developing a line of work pioneered by Elinor Ostrom and her colleagues
Develop curricula that simultaneously attend to scientific and civic issues and that teach students to understand and communicate both kinds of narratives together to a variety of audiences.
Develop approaches to democratic governance that are attuned to the role of the scientific enterprise in society.
Ask what it would mean to earn the trust of communities that have been historically marginalized by the institution of science, and what science would look like if this was a priority.
Intervene at institutional and grassroots levels, alongside a robust theoretical analysis.

A PhD is required. Applicants must also demonstrate a strong interest in investigating the intersections of science and civic matters as the focus of their postdoctoral year.

Civic Science is interdisciplinary, and this fellowship is open to specialists in any relevant field.

Qualifications

A scholar with a Ph.D. in any relevant discipline who is not yet tenured.

Desirable qualifications include, but are not limited to, the following:

A background, degree, or certificate in a STEM –– or STEM-adjacent –– field, OR
Work on strengthening, designing, or evaluating democratic processes, OR
A background in the Bloomington School approach to political economy and/or studies of common-pool resources, OR
A background in political science or political theory, OR
Previous work on the connections between community health and civic life, OR
A background in science, technology, and society (STS), OR
A background in critical theory, media studies, rhetoric, philosophy of science and technology, or science communication.

The ideal candidate may have more than one of these backgrounds.

The Postdoctoral Fellow will conduct research related to Civic Science, both independently and in collaboration with Peter Levine, Samantha Fried, and the Kettering Foundation. The Fellow may teach or co-teach one course to undergraduates in the Civic Studies Major. The Fellow will attend orientation and research meetings at the Kettering Foundation as requested.

Apply here: https://apply.interfolio.com/59747.

Opens March 17, 2021 and will continue until the position is filled, or May 20.
Questions about the position should be addressed to Dr. Peter Levine, Associate Dean of Tisch College at Peter.Levine@tufts.edu.

Non-Discrimination Statement: Our institution does not discriminate against job candidates on the basis of actual or perceived gender, gender identity, race, color, national origin, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, or religion. Tufts University, founded in 1852, prioritizes quality teaching, highly competitive basic and applied research and a commitment to active citizenship locally, regionally and globally. Tufts University also prides itself on creating a diverse, equitable, and inclusive community. Current and prospective employees of the university are expected to have and continuously develop skill in, and disposition for, positively engaging with a diverse population of faculty, staff, and students. Tufts University is an Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer. We are committed to increasing the diversity of our faculty and staff and fostering their success when hired. Members of underrepresented groups are welcome and strongly encouraged to apply. If you are an applicant with a disability who is unable to use our online tools to search and apply for jobs, please contact us by calling Johny Laine in the Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO) at 617.627.3298 or at Johny.Laine@tufts.edu. Applicants can learn more about requesting reasonable accommodations at http://oeo.tufts.edu/.

Equal Employment Opportunity Statement: Tufts University, founded in 1852, prioritizes quality teaching, highly competitive basic and applied research, and a commitment to active citizenship locally, regionally, and globally. Tufts University also prides itself on creating a diverse, equitable, and inclusive community. Current and prospective employees of the university are expected to have and continuously develop skill in, and disposition for, positively engaging with a diverse population of faculty, staff, and students.

Tufts University is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. We are committed to increasing the diversity of our faculty and staff and fostering their success when hired. Members of underrepresented groups are welcome and strongly encouraged to apply. See the University’s Non-Discrimination statement and policy here https://oeo.tufts.edu/policies-procedures/non-discrimination/. If you are an applicant with a disability who is unable to use our online tools to search and apply for jobs, please contact us by calling Johny Laine in the Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO) at 617-627-3298 or at johny.laine@tufts.edu. Applicants can learn more about requesting reasonable accommodations at http://oeo.tufts.edu.