Skip to content


My State and Local Government Fall 2015 syllabus (CIDE)

Syllabi renewalIf you follow me on Twitter, you probably know that I requested help both on the Facebook Political Scientists page and on Twitter on how to integrate more female scholars’ writing in my State and Local Government syllabus for this fall. As I’ve explained before, I teach in English at CIDE even though the main language both at CIDE and in Mexico is Spanish. This gives me a lot of leeway in regards to what scholarship I can include, but limits my choices because there’s not a lot of female scholars publishing on subnational politics and policy in Mexico in the English language (there’s an opening there!). I promised I would share widely once I had finished it, so here it is.

You can download my syllabus for State and Local Government Fall 2015 at CIDE Region Centro here. Comments as always, welcome! If you want to access my Dropbox folder with the PDFs in the reading list let me know (send me an email) and I’ll send you the link. I’m also thrilled that a few female scholars whom I admire a lot will be able to join by Skype and guest-lecture. So for that, and for everyone’s help: THANKS!

Posted in academia, teaching.

Tagged with , .


Integrating under-represented scholars into my syllabi

About two years ago, Kim Yi Dionne (Smith College), Tom Pepinsky (Cornell University), Steve Saideman (Carleton University) and myself engaged in a really fun conversation on how much content by female scholars did our syllabi have (you can read the whole Twitter thread here). Being perfectly honest, the whole issue of gender parity rarely occurred to me. When I was teaching at The University of British Columbia’s Department of Political Science, I had a lot of female students, the department itself has a really strong roster of female professors, I have always had super smart coauthors who happen to be women, my Mom is a political science professor herself, and I had amazing women who mentored me (Dr. Kathryn Harrison and Dr. Elinor Ostrom, to name just a couple of them). Thus neither gender citation bias nor gender syllabus bias really crossed my mind ever.

But when Kim, Steve and Tom remarked that they were looking to include more women in their syllabi, I took that conversation to heart. In fact, Steve Saideman has been quite vocal in supporting female scholars (read his latest blog post for suggestions on how to do so on a regular basis)

This Fall 2015, I took it upon myself to find more scholarship by women (especially junior women, under-represented minorities, female scholars of color) to include in my syllabi. Both courses I teach (State and Local Government, and Regional Development) are interdisciplinary, very focused ones. Typically, US scholars would face much less of a problem to be more inclusive with State and Local Government, since the vast majority of subnational politics’ scholarship is US-oriented.

There are two specific journals for subnational politics (State Politics and Policy Quarterly and State and Local Government Review) and very little of their output has focused on Mexico (the country where I teach, and where my students are now). Therefore it’s hard to teach that course in Mexico in the English language (I teach in English, even though CIDE and Mexico are a Spanish-speaking institution and a country).

With Regional Development, while facing the same lack of scholarship in English that is focused on Mexico, I had a much less hard time, since I went to the most theoretical foundations of the course. In both cases, I am teaching third year and fourth year undergraduate students in Public Policy, so my main focus is to ensure that public policy remains at the core of the courses.

Kim Yi Dionne remarked something that I think is super important, which is not to compromise other under-represented voices.

In her case (and in that of Ryan Briggs at Virginia Tech), including African scholars is quite key because of their area of research and teaching. Ryan recently made a similar re-writing of his syllabus to include more African specialists, which I think is quite commendable.

I made an active effort to include more female scholars in both of these syllabi because, as Shana Gadarian (Syracuse) mentioned, it is important to recognize the citation and syllabus bias. We usually tend to go for “canon” or the most listened-to voices without regard for other scholars who might have equally excellent work and not be as regularly cited.

This bias seems to be most visible in in political science, public policy, international relations (though the jury is out on that discussion, see this ISQ paper). Regardless, I wanted to include more female scholars’ writing in my syllabi, so I put out two calls on Twitter and on the Political Science Facebook page. Unfortunately, a lot of the recommendations were heavily US-skewed which (for the most part) made me select them out from my list, unless they were pretty strong on the theoretical component, or the empirical side had some implications for Mexico. Since there is no equivalent on Facebook for the Political Science group, I made this request on Twitter.

Since the recommendations were solid, I then chose a number of readings (also pulling from those I remembered from graduate school, when I wrote my comprehensive exams) trying not to compromise canon readings, and including other underrepresented minorities. Once I finished this exercise (which took the better part of a month), and rewrote both my syllabi, I posted these recommendations on Twitter:

Eric Grollman (University of Richmond) has a great blog (Conditionally Accepted) where he regularly posts suggestions on how to support marginalized, under-represented and minority scholars. As I mentioned, with regards to citation bias and syllabus bias, four recommendations of mine:

  • Include under-represented scholars in your syllabi.
  • Cite academics whose work is great but who might not be as visible.
  • Promote a broad variety of scholars: practitioners, graduate students, early-career scholars, senior professors. Both online (that’s the goal of the #ScholarSunday hashtag) and offline (emailing their work to colleagues you might think might want to read their work)
  • Collaborate (co-author, share resources/scholarship) with minority, at-the-margins and less-visible academics.
    • I’m really looking forward to teaching these two courses in the fall. Once I have both syllabi revised (I want to run them by my colleagues at CIDE), I’ll post them online. I’m also happy to share my Dropbox folder with the weekly readings in PDF format. I’m also glad other scholars are taking my suggestion and are including more female scholars into their syllabi.

Posted in academia, teaching.

Tagged with , .


A clean slate: Moving forward in academic writing by starting over

AcWri at home office (Leon and Aguascalientes)Every morning, as I woke up and walked to my home office to start writing, I checked my “To Do” list on my corkboard/whiteboard. I felt the weight of everything I needed to write. Six different papers, plus five conferences, plus writing slides for keynotes and invited talks. This was really stressful. For weeks, I wondered “should I just delete everything and rewrite my to-do list? Cancel commitments I already have? Should I just give up on a specific paper?“.

By the beginning of this past week, I had already completed my Spring-early Summer commitments (5 international conferences, 2 international invited keynotes in the US and Canada, 1 research visit to a public state university, 2 research field trips). Thus shortly before starting my summer holidays (from July 11th through the 30th), I decided to erase my whiteboard and remove all commitments and objectives. I wanted to start with a clean slate.

Clean slate

Obviously I don’t mean starting over by saying “I’m giving up on every single manuscript I had been working on“. Neither does this mean “I will not honor my commitments to other scholars“. What this means is that I will sit down and reflect on my commitments and rewrite my To Do list. But instead of having a permanent reminder of how much work I have to do, I plan to use my whiteboard to shape my commitments daily/weekly. I am creating a table of writing commitments alongside deadlines so that I can use that as my overall target, and then simply schedule what I need to do per day/per week.

This kind of granular planning (break down writing pieces/research projects into small components that I tackle on an every day basis) is something that I always advocate, but that I didn’t do when writing at home (I always do this at my campus office, also drawing goals and targets into my whiteboards). That’s why I felt that all these commitments were weighing on me. It wasn’t until I closed certain cycles (my travel cycle, for one!) that I felt enough stamina to rethink my full slate. So now I’m working on transforming the papers I presented at conferences into journal article manuscripts and following up on my writing commitments for the rest of the year. And writing and editing syllabi. But with a completely clean slate that I will be filling on a weekly basis.

For some good posts on planning your academic writing, check Pat Thomson on planning versus creativity, Rachael Cayley’s excellent piece on reverse outlines, and Jo Van Every on emergency planning techniques. I’ll be planning my fall writing schedule in the next couple of days.

Posted in academia.

Tagged with .


3 years with @CIDE_mx already!

Dr. Raul Pacheco-Vega at CIESAS workshopLast July 1st I celebrated my first 3 years with CIDE (Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Economicas, the Center for Research and Teaching in Economics). I joined CIDE on July 1st, 2012, after spending 2006-2012 teaching in the Department of Political Science at The University of British Columbia. I have extremely fond memories from UBC Political Science, and I will always be grateful to them.

CIDE is the most prestigious social science research institution in Latin America, and we have some of the best scholars in their respective fields. I do miss Canada terribly, particularly my hometown (Vancouver), but I have grown enormously both as a person and as a scholar. I still have a lot of room for improvement, but I feel very fortunate to have a tenure-track position that really has given me everything I need to undertake an ambitious and aggressive research agenda. The teaching load is very low (2 courses per year), and I usually front-load it on to the Fall term, so that I can use Spring terms (and summer) for research trips, fieldwork, conferences and keynotes. There are publication incentives, the salary is very competitive, and I have a stellar group of colleagues and friends.

Resources and new printer at CIDE Region Centro

Like with everything, I have had challenges, none of them insurmountable, but they did have a negative impact on my productivity and my balance overall, particularly during 2014 and the beginning of 2015. My parents’ health (as well as my own) took a turn for the worse in 2014, and I basically lost 2 months of my life in December 2014 and January 2015 because I was ill and suffering of chronic pain. Nonetheless, I’m pretty happy with where I am right now, and I’m looking forward to a very productive fall 2015.

My new and revamped office at CIDE Region CentroI’m grateful to my colleagues and students for always providing a nurturing and intellectually stimulating environment. I’m also very thankful that I have my best friend from childhood living in Aguascalientes, as that makes me a lot less stressed about trying to have a personal life as well as a professional one. Of course, during the Spring semester, I travel a lot for fieldwork and conferences, but at least I have people who are about me who will be back home when I return and with whom I will get to spend time.

The search for that elusive objective of achieving a balance between my academic life and my personal one continues to be a struggle. I’m disciplined with my writing and with my self-care routines, but I’m still not in a position to be “a guiding light” for anyone on how to have a balanced academic and personal life. Still, I think I’m doing much better than I was in June 2012. I miss UBC, I miss Vancouver, and I miss Canada, but I’m grateful to Mexico and CIDE for the opportunities I’m afforded here.

Posted in academia.


My experience at the 2nd International Conference on Public Policy #ICPP2015

International Conference on Public Policy 2015 (Milano, Italia)One of the challenges that I have seen to public policy as a discipline is that sometimes every disciplinary silo is their parent, and sometimes it’s an orphan discipline. Both political science and public administration claim public policy as their child, yet it always ends up being a subordinate sub-field in both disciplines, instead of its own. It’s always a few panels at the American Political Science Association, or at the American Society for Public Administration conferences. Or any of the regional conferences (Midwest, Southern, etc.). But this conference was different, and that’s why I am gushing about it. Last week, I participated in the 2nd International Conference on Public Policy (ICPP) which saw the birth of the International Public Policy Association (IPPA), hosted by Éupolis Lombardia – Institute for Research, Statistics and Training and Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore and hosted by UCSC in the center of Milan, Italy. ICPP was a dedicated conference for public policy theorizing and discussing, which is what made it so good. I had missed the chance to participate in the first ICPP, but I wasn’t going to miss this one.

I participated in two panels with some of the best scholars worldwide in the fields of public policy. And while this was slightly intimidating, it was also very reassuring. Because I want my research to have global impact and readership, I don’t want to just be a scholar of public policy in Mexico, but instead have international collaborations and advance our understanding of public policy theory globally.

International Conference on Public Policy 2015 (Milano, Italia)At the conference, I saw Chris Weible, Paul Cairney, Guy Peters, Helen Ingram, Nikolaos Zahariadis (of the multiple streams framework), Tanya Heikkila, and many more. This was by and large a heavy-weights conference on public policy. My first panel was on polycentricity, organized by Andreas Thiel (who is quickly becoming a very well established scholar of polycentricity) and Bill Blomquist (yes, THAT Bill Blomquist, from the Blomquist and Schlager 2005 critique of governing by river basin councils). My panel had Edella Schlager (yes, THAT Edella Schlager, one of the best and most well known scholars in the field) as discussant, Tom Koontz (yes, THAT Tom Koontz, one of the most well established collaborative governance scholars in the world).

Pacheco-Vega at ICPPMy second panel was organized by Chris Weible (University of Colorado at Denver) (of the Theories of Policy Process book) and Paul Cairney (University of Stirling). Paul is also a very well established scholar of public policy theory, having authored several books on the topic. The second panel examined how we use traditional theories in innovative ways. I presented my work on informal waste pickers there, using the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework. My co-panelists were all first-rate, world-class scholars. And obviously the discussants were amazing too. I actually noticed something at ICPP that I hadn’t noticed in many other conferences: the level was uniformly high. You know how at academic conferences you can see that the level is uneven? In this case, all presenters were high-level, and that was really amazing. By the way, that’s me presenting, photo credit Paul Cairney.

I look forward to incorporating the feedback I received into both of my papers for journal submission. I am particularly excited for both sets of papers – I am moving forward with my research on polycentric water governance, and with my global comparative politics of informal waste picking. And in both cases, my neoinstitutional theory work is also moving forward.

International Conference on Public Policy 2015 (Milano, Italia)

There was an entire delegation of professors from CIDE who participated in the conference (six of us, overall), which also made it very fun. This phenomenon was the result of happy coincidences, one of them that my colleague Mauricio Dussauge (CIDE) and Jose Luis Mendez from El Colegio de Mexico are editing a book on policy analysis in Mexico, so they organized several panels where my colleagues participated. The other one, that I was already coming here for the other panels that I had committed to.

International Conference on Public Policy (ICPP 2015) Polycentricity panel

Overall, I strongly recommend ICPP and joining IPPA. I will do my very best to come to the next one. Although the only drawback of holding ICPP in Milan in July was that it was 38 oC in the shade, and 27 oC at night, so that made it just about impossible to do sightseeing without having to hide in air-conditioned restaurants on a regular basis. Hopefully next time the weather will be a lot more amicable. Thanks to the organizers and the local committee and volunteers, as well as the participants.

You can read the Twitter stream of the conference here, and see my Flickr photo set here.

Posted in academia, conferences, environmental policy.

Tagged with , , .


Upcoming talks: International Conference on Public Policy (ICPP 2015)

I am at the second International Conference on Public Policy which is taking place in Milan, Italy from July 1st through 4th, 2015. My first paper is this morning, “Examining the effect of type of water on degree of polycentricity”. Panel: Grounding polycentric governance: Constitutional rules, the characteristics of social problems and their illustration in water management”.

My second paper will be “Governing garbage? An application of the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework to understanding conflict and collaboration dynamics between municipal governments and informal waste pickers” Panel: Using Traditional Policy Theories and Concepts in Untraditional Ways. This will take place tomorrow, Friday.

I am still jet-lagged so I don’t have much to share other than this looks like an amazing conference and I hope my presentations will go well!

Posted in academia, conferences.

Tagged with , , .



Upcoming talks: #CAG 2015 on geographies of waste

I love conferences that happen in my hometown, and I’m lucky that the Canadian Association of Geographers (CAG) conference this year will take place in Vancouver. I’m here now, and will come back after Edmonton (where I’ll be speaking at IASC 2015, presenting two papers) to do some fieldwork and participate in two panels that I organized with Dr. Kate O’Neill (University of California Berkeley) on the geographies of waste. Kate and I will also be presenting our research on informal e-waste recycling in Mexico, the US and possibly Canada. If you’re at CAG and are interested in my work, send me an email and we can schedule a one-on-one meeting.

I’m very grateful to Dr. Roger Hayter, the chair of the organizing committee for CAG 2015, and a former member of my doctoral dissertation committee, and I’m really excited to see him and many other Canadian geographers this week.

Posted in academia.

Tagged with , , , .


Upcoming talks: #IASC2015 on polycentricity and socio-ecological systems

Thrilled to announce that I’ll be at the 2015 International Association for the Study of the Commons meeting organized by Dr. Brenda Parlee and a great team of collaborators at the University of Alberta in Edmonton (Canada). I organized a panel and I’m participating in another. The panel I organized has papers by Andreas Thiel, Edella Schlager, Dustin Garrick and myself, all on polycentricity (a concept pioneered by Vincent Ostrom and then developed further by Elinor Ostrom). A paper I’m presenting on the socio-ecological systems (SES) framework and how it applies to water governance is part of another panel.

You can find abstracts for my two papers below and the panel I organized here:

Polycentricity in commons governance: Theories, case studies and future challenges
Organizer: Raul Pacheco-Vega, PhD.
Institution: Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Economicas (CIDE)
Contact: raul(.)pacheco(-)vega(@)cide(.)edu

Polycentricity as a conceptual and analytical framework has recently gained much popularity, in particular because of its potential for robust commons governance. While Vincent Ostrom and Elinor Ostrom had already pioneered work on polycentric commons governance, recently it has had many applications to climate change, forestry and water resource management, amongst many other topics. This panel will examine the challenges of using polycentricity in commons governance as a theoretical and empirical strategy. Papers in the panel will explore case studies of polycentric commons governance, discuss theoretical advances in polycentricity theory and formulate specific challenges facing the literature on polycentricity.

My paper:
Evaluating polycentricity in water governance? Towards a life cycle measuring framework
Dr. Raul Pacheco-Vega
Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE)

Despite being a concept coined by Vincent Ostrom in the early 1960s, polycentricity has emerged in the last decade pretty much like another panacea, overarching paradigm (much like integrated water resources management has been for the past 30 years). Elinor Ostrom and Vincent Ostrom’s work has nonetheless helped advance our understanding of polycentric systems for resource governance, yet a gap still remains: is polycentricity a concept that can be measured? Should it be measured and can we reach a consensus on which dimensions should be used for this measurement? In this paper, I combine the literature on polycentricity with the issue area of water governance and build a qualitative and quantitative framework through which I then examine sub-national, comparative case studies of water governance in Mexico. I argue that the life cycle framework presented in this paper needs to be tested with other cases across nations to refine whether the dimensions of polycentricity offered in this paper actually increase our analytical power to better understand commons governance.

Thank you to the organizers of IASC 2015, I look forward to participating!

Posted in environmental policy.

Tagged with , .


Reporting on higher education needs more diverse voices, and the NYT is NOT on it

Well, if I’m going to blog about this, I might as well go big or go home, so here’s my rant, more or less pieced out from the NYT recent pieces on academic conferences and the “value” of a professor. Both pieces were written by scholars who, when we talk about privilege (and being a full time academic IS a privilege) are within the top rungs. I call these pieces “academic clickbait” because they make us all go “BUT THAT’S NOT HOW ACADEMIA REALLY WORKS” and write response pieces, which in turn (because we’re good scholars and we cross-link and attribute) give them even more clicks. Remember when I said that these pieces were click-bait? This is a genre most perfected by Nick Kristof, who got us all angry because we were told we weren’t engaging enough with the public and we still lived in the ivory tower.

So, two folks I really like took the NYT’s bait and responded two most excellent pieces, which are respectively David M. Perry in defense of the academic conference, and Kevin Gannon, explaining that he was too busy teaching to be lectured to on the value of professors. I really like both David and Kevin and their responses to the NYT’s academic clickbait, particularly because they come from the SLAC world.

THAT SAID…

What I said on Twitter this morning remains true, about the lack of diversity in the voices that exists in academia and the public discourse around it, and it is important to remember that three of the responses I saw were by white male academics who are full time faculty members, two at small liberal arts colleges (David and Kevin) and one tenured at an R1 (Dan Drezner, whom I also really like). It is true that David and Kevin’s responses DO add to the diversity because they present us not with the R1 (research university for those not of you in the world of academiquese) view, but with a SLAC view. And Dan reminds us that the risk with these op-eds is that a common, day-to-day reader would simply take what they read at face value and form a grossly oversimplified view of what higher education looks like. But voices from scholars of color, female academics, adjuncts, are still nowhere to be found.

I took the bait too, but I swear that there is a reason why I am doing so. As I said, to add diversity to the conversation you would also need to hear, as I indicated, from marginalized academics, adjuncts, graduate students, female scholars, academics of color, and queer scholars. Those who, like David and Kevin indicate about the case of professors at SLACs, face structural inequalities in the world of higher education day in and day out. And I’m queer, Latino and I teach in a Mexican institution but maintain an international presence. So I figure I had something to add to the conversation. I recognize my own privilege (full time, TT, 2-0 teaching load), but I am also part of communities that have traditionally faced marginalization.

I have previously defended the value of academic conferences, particularly because that’s where I get a lot of exposure to my work in English, seeing as I teach in a Spanish language institution. I have also previously showcased the challenges of public engagement for marginalized academics given the realities of structural inequalities and marginalization processes that are deeply embedded in traditional academia.

So, I issued a challenge on Twitter: we DO need to rethink academia, but collectively. Not by getting individually angry at these op-eds, but by starting, continuing, and furthering our conversations about what needs to be done to change higher education, and THEN do it. I will acknowledge that these op-eds do start conversations amongst ourselves, I just wish we did not need them to have these talks. And again, I insist on the lack of diverse voices in mainstream reporting and opinion pieces on higher education. Hopefully this new wave (trust me, we will get another academic click bait piece in 3…2…1) of thought pieces will force us to engage more deeply with the issues facing modern academia, particularly how to create opportunities for public engagement for scholars on the margins.

EDIT: Speaking of more diverse voices, LD Burnett and Melonie Fullick also wrote responses to Bauerlein that are totally worth checking out, and much more interesting than the academic clickbait we were subjected to.

Posted in academia.

Tagged with .