Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-7l5rh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-04T19:30:04.862Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Colleague Crowdsourcing: A Method for Fostering National Student Engagement and Large-N Data Collection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2014

Amber E. Boydstun
University of California, Davis
Jessica T. Feezell
University of New Mexico
Rebecca A. Glazier
University of Arkansas, Little Rock
Timothy P. Jurka
University of California, Davis
Matthew T. Pietryka
Florida State University


Scholars often rely on student samples from their own campuses to study political behavior, but some studies require larger and more diverse samples than any single campus can provide. In our case, we wanted to study the real-time effects of presidential debates on individual-level attitudes, and we sought a large sample with diversity across covariates such as ideology and race. To address this challenge, we recruited college students across the country through a process we call “colleague crowdsourcing.” As an incentive for colleagues to encourage their students to participate, we offered teaching resources and next-day data summaries. Crowdsourcing provided data from a larger and more diverse sample than would be possible using a standard, single-campus subject pool. Furthermore, this approach provided classroom resources for faculty and opportunities for active learning. We present colleague crowdsourcing as a possible model for future research and offer suggestions for application in varying contexts.

Copyright © American Political Science Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Albertson, Bethany, and Lawrence, Adria. 2009. “After the Credits Roll: The Long-Term Effects of Educational Television on Public Knowledge and Attitudes.” American Politics Research 37(2): 275300.Google Scholar
Beaumont, Elizabeth, Colby, Anne, Ehrlich, Thomas, and Torney-Purta, Judith. 2006. “Promoting Political Competence and Engagement in College Students: An Empirical Study.” Journal of Political Science Education 2(3): 249–70.Google Scholar
Benoit, William L., Hansen, Glenn J., and Verser, Rebecca M.. 2003. “A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Viewing U.S. Presidential Debates.” Communication Monographs 70(4): 335–50.Google Scholar
Boydstun, Amber E., Glazier, Rebecca A., Pietryka, Matthew T., and Resnik, Philip. 2014. “Real-Time Reactions to a 2012 Presidential Debate: A Method for Understanding Which Messages Matter.” Public Opinion Quarterly 78 (Special Issue).Google Scholar
Brabham, Daren C. 2008. “Crowdsourcing as a Model for Problem Solving: An Introduction and Cases.” Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 14(1): 7590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Scott W., and King, Frederick B.. 2000. “Constructivist Pedagogy and How We Learn: Educational Psychology Meets International Studies.” International Studies Perspectives 1(2): 245–54.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N., and Kam, Cindy D.. 2011. “Students as Experimental Participants: A Defense of the ‘Narrow Data Base.’” In Handbook of Experimental Political Science, ed. Druckman, J. N., Green, D. P., Kuklinski, J. H., and Lupia., A. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fridkin, Kim L., Kenney, Patrick J., Allen Gershon, Sarah, Shafer, Karen, and Woodall, Gina Serignese. 2007. “Capturing the Power of a Campaign Event: The 2004 Presidential Debate in Tempe.” The Journal of Politics 69(3): 770–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hess, Frederick M. 1999. Bringing the Social Sciences Alive. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Hillygus, Sunshine D. 2005. “The MISSING LINK: Exploring the Relationship between Higher Education and Political Engagement.” Political Behavior 27(1): 2547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamieson, , Hall, Kathleen, and Birdsell, David S.. 1990. Presidential Debates: The Challenge of Creating an Informed Electorate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jerit, Jennifer, Barabas, Jason, and Clifford, Scott. 2013. “Comparing Contemporaneous Laboratory and Field Experiments on Media Effects.” Public Opinion Quarterly 77(1): 256–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaid, Lynda Lee, McKinney, Mitchell S., and Tedesco, John C.. 2007. “Introduction: Political Information Efficacy and Young Voters.” American Behavioral Scientist 50(9): 1093–111.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R. 2007. “Curmudgeonly Advice.” Journal of Communication 57(1): 155–62.Google Scholar
Marcus, George E., and Mackuen, Michael B.. 1993. “Anxiety, Enthusiasm, and the Vote: The Emotional Underpinnings of Learning and Involvement during Presidential Campaigns.” The American Political Science Review 87(3): 672–85.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. Patrick, and Anderson, Liam. 2000. “Active Learning Techniques Versus Traditional Teaching Styles: Two Experiments from History and Political Science.” Innovative Higher Education 24(4): 279–94.Google Scholar
McCartney, Alison Rios Millett, Bennion, Elizabeth A., and Simpson, Dick (eds.). 2013. Teaching Civic Engagement: From Student to Active Citizen. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
McKinney, Mitchell S., and Rill, Leslie A.. 2009. “Not Your Parents’ Presidential Debates: Examining the Effects of the CNN/YouTube Debates on Young Citizens’ Civic Engagement.” Communication Studies 60(4): 392406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintz, Alex, Redd, Steven B., and Vedlitz, Arnold. 2006. “Can We Generalize from Student Experiments to the Real World in Political Science, Military Affairs, and International Relations?Journal of Conflict Resolution 50(5): 757–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oakes, William. 1972. “External Validity and the Use of Real People as Subjects.” American Psychologist 27(10): 959.Google Scholar
Pace, David, Bishel, Bill, Beck, Roger, Holquist, Peter, and Makowski, George. 1990. “Structure and Spontaneity: Pedagogical Tensions in the Construction of a Simulation of the Cuban Missile Crisis.” The History Teacher 24(1): 5365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, William G. 1968. Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years. New York: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Peterson, Robert A. 2001. “On the Use of College Students in Social Science Research: Insights from a Second-Order Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Consumer Research 28(3): 450–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfau, Michael, Brian Houston, J., and Semmler, Shane M.. 2005. “Presidential Election Campaigns and American Democracy: The Relationship between Communication Use and Normative Outcomes.” American Behavioral Scientist 49(1): 4862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruben, Brent D. 1999. “Simulation, Games, and Experience-Based Learning: The Quest for a New Paradigm for Teaching and Learning.” Simulation and Gaming 30(4): 498506.Google Scholar
Sears, David O. 1986. “College Sophomores in the Laboratory: Influences of a Narrow Data Base on Social Psychology’s View of Human Nature.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(3): 515–30.Google Scholar
Smith, Elizabeth T., and Boyer, Mark A.. 1996. “Designing In-Class Simulations.” PS: Political Science and Politics 29(4): 690–4.Google Scholar
Sutro, Edmund. 1985. “Full-Dress Simulations: A Total Learning Experience.” Social Education 49: 628–34.Google Scholar
Washbush, John, and Gosen, Jerry. 2001. “Learning in Total Enterprise Simulations.” Simulation and Gaming 32: 281–96.Google Scholar
Wolfe, Joseph, and Crooktall, David. 1998. “Developing a Scientific Knowledge of Simulation/Gaming.” Simulation and Gaming 29(1): 720.Google Scholar