PSUR Writer's Feature: Daisy Brazil

Daisy Brazil (she/her) is a 3rd year Honors Drama student with a minor in Political Science. Her paper “Avoiding Accountability: Democratic Backsliding in Poland” was published in the 2022 edition of the PSUR!
Daisy volunteers at the University of Alberta's High School Model United Nations conference and at the New Works Festival, which showcases new plays from emerging artists in the U of A community.
Her favourite Political Science course has been POL S 371 (Populism and Democracy in Central Europe). Daisy describes that she “really loved being able to dig into specific case studies to examine political behaviour in that region has been affected by their relatively new relationship with the European Union and their legacy as former Soviet states”, adding that she “learned a lot about how different perceptions of history and legacy can form national identities, and how they can also be weaponized to justify anti-democratic behaviour.”
Read further to hear about Daisy’s research, her reassurances to students to submit to the PSUR even if Political Science is your minor, and the support she received from the PSUR team.

Hi Daisy! What inspired you to research the specific topic of your paper?
I wrote this paper for a class on Central Europe that I took in the fall term, and I honestly had no knowledge of politics in the region before taking this class. As I was taking it, I became so interested in how these post-communist states who had managed to reject authoritarianism in the past were suddenly swinging in the complete opposite direction and began rejecting many democratic principles, though this time from the opposite side of the political spectrum. I've always been interested in how a country's national history and mythology influence political behaviour, so I wrote about Poland because they have a strong sense of national identity that political parties are able to utilize in order to explain and justify anti-democratic policies.

What made you want to submit to the PSUR?
In all honesty, I was really proud of the work that I put into this paper and I wanted the opportunity for it to reach a wider audience! I had been thinking about submitting a paper for a long time but I didn't think I had anything good enough to submit. After working on this paper for a class, I was really happy with how it turned out and I figured that it was as good a time as any to submit to the PSUR!

What was the submission and peer-review process like for you? And what was the most valuable part?
The submission and peer-review process were both very smooth and simple! The peer editors were incredibly smart and gave me a lot of feedback that really made my work better. The most valuable part was the support I got from the PSUR team — they were all so encouraging and supportive.

What would you say to someone who is considering submitting their work to the PSUR?
It sounds simple, but don't be afraid to submit! I had a lot of imposter syndrome as I was submitting since I'm not a Political Science major, but it was absolutely worth it and I'm really proud to be able to showcase my work. It was an experience I'm so grateful for and I really encourage anyone who has written an excellent Poli Sci paper, whether it's your major or not, to submit.

You can read Daisy’s article in the 2022 edition of the PSUR on our website!

PSUR Writer's Feature: Rebecca Swityk & Kael Kropp

Rebecca Swityk (all pronouns) and Kael Kropp (he/him) co-authored a paper together that is published in the 2022 edition of the PSUR, titled “The Quieted Queer: Russian Heteronationalism and LGBTQ+ Erasure”. Rebecca is a second-year Criminology major, and Kael is a graduating Honors Political Science student with a minor in Psychology and a Certificate in Applied Social Science Research.
Rebecca is a Social Sciences Councillor, Merchandise Director, and Vice President (Internal)-elect of the Organization for Arts Students and Interdisciplinary Studies (OASIS), and a peer reviewer for Crossings and Invoke. Her favourite Political Science class has been POL S 101, sharing that “As a criminology student, my experiences in Political Science are limited. However, my time in POL S 101 was incredibly formative, expanding my knowledge in sociology as it relates to political theory.”
Kael is the University of Alberta's Killam Fellow (Fulbright Canada), the Vice President (Academic) of the Organization for Arts Students and Interdisciplinary Studies (OASIS), the Editor-in-Chief of Crossings, and a former Roger S. Smith Undergraduate Student Researcher. His favourite Political Science class has been POL S 323 (Elections in Canada), sharing that “Dr. Trimble and the other students made our class discussions incredibly engaging, covering urgent topics for advancing Canadian civic equity”. The research Kael did in this class also introduced him to the work of his upcoming Master’s thesis supervisor at the University of British Columbia, Dr. Carey Doberstein!
Read further to hear about Rebecca and Kael’s research and their personal connection to the topic, as well as their emphasis on the value of submitting your own work to peer-reviewed journals like the PSUR.

Hi Rebecca and Kael! What inspired you to research the specific topic of your paper?
As queer Canadian students, we recognize the benefits granted by statutory protections and equality-ensuring measures in our daily lives. We authentically lead our lives with little to no worry that we will be targeted, especially not by our government. Recognizing this privilege sparked our introspection, compelling us to delve into the egregious affronts faced by queer Russians.

What was the most interesting thing you learned from researching/writing your paper?
We were most shocked about Russia’s judicial support for a one-hundred-year ban on queer free expression. This, to us, represents an intergenerational extinction of queer authenticity, worthy of advocacy and scholarly inquiry to counter such prejudice.

What made you want to submit to the PSUR?
The PSUR is a fantastic vehicle to disseminate our writing around queer Russian advocacy and state-sponsored homophobia. We are proud to be featured alongside a host of other incredible student research!

What was the submission and peer-review process like for you? And what was the most valuable part?
We are so fortunate to have been supported by the wonderful PSUR review and copy editing teams throughout the submission process. Their revision suggestions and a close eye for detail undoubtedly strengthened this article.

What would you say to someone who is considering submitting their work to the PSUR?
Submitting to an academic journal is an incredibly valuable experience, especially when given the opportunity to have your work reviewed by a panel composed of such diverse knowledge reserves. Regardless of the editorial decision, having your work critically reviewed by fresh eyes is instrumental and exciting. It expands your knowledge while isolating gaps in your research, which is an invaluable asset to leave the process with.

What is a piece of advice that you would give to students as they write papers that they might submit to the PSUR?
Our advice for prospective authors is to offer more background information than you might for a class specific to your paper, as sometimes your paper is reviewed by folks without as much exposure to the topic as you. Second, we suggest entering into the review process with an open mind and embracing the edits suggested by the review team. Undergraduate publication venues like the PSUR have your best interests at heart!

You can read Rebecca and Kael’s article in the 2022 edition of the PSUR on our website!

PSUR Writer's Feature: Carly Kutnikoff

Carly Kutnikoff (she/her) is a fourth year Political Science major with a minor in History, and has just published her article "Partners in Prosperity: Analyzing the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation” in the 2022 edition of the PSUR. 
Outside of academics, Carly is a successful contributor to the Undocumented Migration Project: Hostile Terrain 94 exhibit at the University of Alberta Fine Arts gallery through the Department of History & Classics as well as the Edmonton City as Museum Project. She also holds a certificate from the House of Commons recognizing work in preserving and promoting Albertan history.
Carly’s favourite Political Science class has been POL S 327 (Indigenous Politics in Canada) taught by Dr. Isabel Altamirano-Jimenez. She explains that “this course explored the tensions between the Canadian political landscape and Indigenous autonomy and rights. Further, the materials examined the impact of Canadian resource extraction on Indigenous women's bodies with a focus on intertwining feminist and environmental justice discourse.”
Read further to hear about Carly’s research, its importance, and her encouragement of submitting your own work to a student journal!

Hi Carly! What inspired you to research the specific topic of your paper?
I have always taken an interest in understanding local and provincial politics and the ways in which they impact the lives of those in Alberta. However, having a passion for history, I began to question how and if Alberta legislation addressed colonial histories and existing colonial structures of violence. Reflecting on the intertwined systems of Alberta government and politics, resource extraction and colonialism, I was intrigued by Bill 14 (the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation Act) passed by the current United Conservative government. While reconciliation remains an ongoing project, I sought to examine the extent to which legislation was representative of the recommendations outlined in the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada as well as dedicated to the wellbeing of Indigenous communities. For me, this paper was about de-centering Alberta politics and challenging the current approach to reconciliation.

What was the most interesting thing you learned from researching/writing your paper?
The most interesting thing I learned during research for this paper was contemporary use of documents historically used to disenfranchise Indigenous individuals. The enactment of historical documents and legislation are inherently marked by colonial thought processes and beliefs and therefore act in opposition to reconciliatory efforts.

What made you want to submit to the PSUR?
I reflected on the research and analysis that went into this paper and recognized the difficulties associated with locating as well as understanding government legislation, and wanted to call attention to the intricacies of legislation that ultimately impacts all of us. In addition, this research and writing challenged me to think about my own self-location and acknowledge the ways in which I am implicated in colonial structures and what I can do to dismantle these structures. While it is an uncomfortable exercise, I wanted to emphasize this discomfort as a signal of learning and growing.

What was the submission and peer-review process like for you? And what was the most valuable part?
The peer-review process was amazing and extremely helpful in pinpointing opportunities to strengthen my work. The most valuable part was receiving multiple points of view to understand the perspective of different readers and how my work may translate to others. This definitely helped me step outside of my writing bubble and examine ways to make my work more accessible and digestible.

What would you say to someone who is considering submitting their work to the PSUR?
Just do it! I essentially viewed the process as submitting work for a blind review and at the end you get the opportunity to have peers provide feedback on your work which you can utilize to improve your writing skills for future projects and submissions. Chosen or not, you gain insight into what publications are searching for and what they value. As a bonus, being published offered me a boost of encouragement and laid the foundation for me to continue further down my path of academic interest and explore new opportunities.

What is a piece of advice that you would give to students as they write papers that they might submit to the PSUR?
I think we as students like to have a method to the madness of writing a paper, but the most important part is to simply begin and identify your arguments. The best way to ensure I am keeping on track with the subject of my writing is having a self-check in after each paragraph and ask myself: would the reader understand why this is important?

You can read Carly’s article in the 2022 edition of the PSUR on our website!

PSUR Writer's Feature: Nancy Skorobohach

Nancy Skorobohach (she/her) is a graduating honors Political Science student, with a minor in International Studies and a Certificate in Peace and Post-Conflict Studies. Her article “A Misleading Memory: Using The Holodomor to Vilify Socialism” was published in this year’s edition of the PSUR!
Outside of academics, Nancy has been a Crisis Intervention Volunteer with the University of Alberta Sexual Assault Centre for three years, a member of the Youth Advisory Board for the Research Network on Women, Peace and Security, and also served as the Volunteer Coordinator for the executive board of the U of A's Girl Up for the 2021-2022 school year. 
Her favourite Political Science course was POL S 469 (Ethics in International Relations with Dr. Epp), sharing that “it was a very soul-nourishing class” because it combined theory, social justice, and international relations, and because it provided the opportunity to reflect on how her ancestry, upbringing, and life experiences have shaped her morals and outlook on the world. 
Read further to hear about Nancy’s engaging research and her tips and tricks for writing papers!

Hi Nancy! What inspired you to research the specific topic of your paper?
I wrote this for POLS 459: Topics in International Relations (History, Memory, and Politics) and I chose the topic because I am Ukrainian and I wanted the opportunity to learn more about the Holodomor and the history that my ancestors lived through. I also wanted to try and reconcile my socialist political leaning with this other part of my identity, which led me to discover the discrepancies between history and the memory that lives on today. 

What was the most interesting thing you learned from researching/writing your paper?
Learning about the reality of the Holodomor through academic research changed the perspective I had heard before conveyed in mainstream media (as I discuss in the paper) and really made me realize how sculpted the narratives are.

What made you want to submit to the PSUR?
My friend proof-read the paper for me when I wrote it in the spring of 2021 and he told me it was probably my best writing (and he had proof-read the majority of my papers that year so he was well-qualified to make that statement)! He encouraged me to submit it to the PSUR. I also wanted to share it because of the personal significance it has and the way it helped me to reconcile parts of my identity that I was previously hesitant to discuss at the same time.

What was the submission and peer-review process like for you? And what was the most valuable part?
Since I had written the paper months before submissions opened, it was a pretty relaxed process. I found the feedback from the peer reviewers very helpful, especially as they highlighted concepts that needed to be expanded on since it is easy to write a paper for a professor who is clearly well-acquainted with the course concepts, but it is another thing to share that with people who haven't even taken the class.

What would you say to someone who is considering submitting their work to the PSUR?
Go for it! You really have nothing to lose and a whole lot to gain, so why not submit it?

What is a piece of advice that you would give to students as they write papers that they might submit to the PSUR?
If you're writing it for a class, my biggest tip is to create a rough outline or sketch of what you want to discuss and then go talk to the instructor about it! As intimidating as it can be, it is always worth it to work through your general ideas with them before you start writing.

You can read Nancy’s article in the 2022 edition of the PSUR on our website!

PSUR Writer's Feature: Tina Kim

Tina Kim (she/her) is a second year Political Science (honors) student with a Certificate in Sustainability. Her article “The Canadian Constitution Needs to be Amended in Order for Canada to Fully Embrace Multiculturalism” was recently published in the 2022 edition of the PSUR!
Tina has been part of the City of Edmonton Youth Council (CEYC) for the past 3 years, and her passion for policy and governance has only grown during that time. Tina’s initiative group was able to formulate a food waste and insecurity report to City council and pass a motion for possible implementation of their recommendation. Being part of CEYC has allowed her to apply concepts and ideas she learned in class to real life settings which has been extremely rewarding.
Although Tina hasn’t had the chance to take many Political Science courses as she is still in her second year, her favourite course has been a classic: POL S 101 (Introduction to Political Science). She found the class eye-opening as it introduced her to concepts she had never explored before. 
Read further to hear about Tina’s research on Canadian multiculturalism and the ways it was inspired by her own life, and about her experience of learning, realizing, and reflecting during the writing process.

Hi Tina! What inspired you to research the specific topic of your paper?
I have always been interested in multiculturalism because me and my family immigrated to Canada when I was young. My paper specifically discusses how Bilingualism, which is guaranteed by the Constitution, limits the ability of other cultural groups to adjust and live in Canada. I chose this topic as my family and I felt, first-hand, the limitations of not being fluent in English or French. Therefore, my experiences of being an immigrant inspired me to further dive into this topic and what Canada should do in order to accommodate the multicultural populations living in Canada.

What was the most interesting thing you learned from researching/writing your paper?
I can confidently say the most interesting part of my paper is my last argument paragraph.  It was the most interesting because I was learning, realizing and reflecting while I was writing this paragraph. It was an exciting and fun process to write this because it was not part of my original planning. It was fascinating as I had come up with this argument as I was writing and reflecting on my previous paragraphs. It was like a light-bulb moment, a new concept I had never seen or read about. It was my idea, my argument. I was proud of it and it became a highlight of my paper.

What made you want to submit to the PSUR?
My TA for my class suggested to me that I should submit my paper. I had never thought that I was capable or that my paper would be up to the standards to be published, but I just gave it a shot and it worked!

What was the submission and peer-review process like for you? And what was the most valuable part?
I think the most valuable part of the process was getting critical feedback from other peers. Since I usually submit my papers without peer feedback, it was helpful to get another perspective.

What would you say to someone who is considering submitting their work to the PSUR?
Just try and don't be afraid of rejection! I submitted my paper without much expectation that it would be accepted. I think that is a reason why I was able to submit multiple papers without fear of rejection. You won't regret it if you try, but you will if you don't give it a shot.

What is a piece of advice that you would give to students as they write papers that they might submit to the PSUR?
Be original. Use your own voice and write about a topic you are passionate about!

You can read Tina’s article in the 2022 edition of the PSUR on our website!

PSUR Writer's Feature: Kael Kropp

Kael Kropp (he/him) is a graduating honors Political Science student, with a minor in Psychology and a Certificate in Applied Social Science Research. Kael had 2 articles published in the 2022 edition of the PSUR, and an additional article that he co-authored (discussed in a later blog post). The two articles are titled “No House, No Vote: Elite voting laws and houseless peoples’ franchise in Canada” and “The (Persisting) American Authoritarian Personality: Tracking political affinity, antipathy, and polarization to the post-Trump era”.
He is the University of Alberta's Killam Fellow (Fulbright Canada); the Vice President (Academic) of the Organization for Arts Students and Interdisciplinary Studies; the Editor-in-Chief of Crossings; and a former Roger S. Smith Undergraduate Student Researcher. 
Kael’s favourite Political Science course was POL S 323 (Elections in Canada), sharing that “I always joke that ‘I want to be like Linda Trimble when I'm older,’ and it is largely because of this class! Dr. Trimble and the other students made our class discussions incredibly engaging, covering urgent topics for advancing Canadian civic equity”. The research Kael did in this class also introduced him to the work of his upcoming Master’s thesis supervisor at the University of British Columbia, Dr. Carey Doberstein!
Read further to hear about both of Kael’s wonderful articles and some of the advice he offers to anyone considering submitting their own work to the PSUR!

Hi Kael! What inspired you to research the specific topic of your papers?
No House, No Vote - Before writing this paper, I knew very little about civic accessibility in Canadian politics. I am very passionate about rectifying pervasive houselessness across our country, so this provided a unique opportunity to critically explore franchise approaches for houseless Canadians.
The (Persisting) American Authoritarian Personality - I wrote this paper for POL S 484: Topics in U.S. Politics and Policy (Authoritarianism). I have long been interested in partisan polarization and the United States is a unique and ongoing case study. Further, I knew that I would be researching abroad in the U.S. for my last semester, so I took the opportunity to critically explore the foundations for contemporary American authoritarianism. Being a political science major and a psychology minor, I was excited to interdisciplinarily frame my research with Adorno et al.'s (1950) notion of 'authoritarian personalities.'

What was the most interesting thing you learned from researching/writing your paper?
No House, No Vote - I was most interested in the ‘elite’ propensity for photo identification requirements. Some Canadians do not have a passport, driver’s license or similar pieces of identification. By making these the preferred identification documents, the government excludes sections of Canada’s population, especially targeting houseless people.
The (Persisting) American Authoritarian Personality - My paper principally concerned U.S. right-wing authoritarianism and I was most interested in the increasing "respect for submission to an acknowledged authority and aggression towards those who are different." When analyzing interview transcripts of Trump supporters at rallies, I sometimes felt like I was watching Monty Python's 1972 "Argument Clinic" sketch. In the sketch, John Cleese and Michael Palin find themselves in a seemingly endless cycle, each alternating "yes I did" and "no you didn't," regardless of what the other had said before. The rise of U.S. authoritarianism, however, is no laughing matter. 

What made you want to submit to the PSUR?
I know the PSUR's quality and academic rigour well, having served on its editorial team in the past. When the opportunity arose to submit potential articles for publication, I was eager to do so! The PSUR shares the significant undergraduate research conducted in our department and I am thrilled to contribute to this year's volume!

What was the submission and peer-review process like for you? And what was the most valuable part?
I am so fortunate to have been supported by the wonderful PSUR review and copy editing teams throughout the submission process. Their revision suggestions and a close eye for detail undoubtedly strengthened the articles. I'd especially like to thank Fea Gelvezon and Chloe Dizon for seeing the merit in these papers and offering several cogent suggestions to improve it throughout publication!

What would you say to someone who is considering submitting their work to the PSUR?
Do it! Submit eligible writing whenever you can! Even if it is not selected for publication, you will receive valuable feedback on your writing that will strengthen your communication and research skills.

What is a piece of advice that you would give to students as they write papers that they might submit to the PSUR?
To quote Kevin from The Office: “why waste time say lot word when few word do trick?” Succinct writing captures the readers’ attention and is more likely to be retained within their knowledge base. Take out an adjective, or two! Read your work aloud as you write! Your brain will know what to keep and what to delete. And most importantly: be proud of what you write! Defend it. Share it.

Find out more information about the journal by visiting our website.

PSUR Writer's Feature: Hayle Dambrowsky

Hayle Dambrowsky (they/them) is a third year honors Political Science student with a minor in Sociology, who recently published their article “How Canada Budgeted More Space for Women: A Glimpse into the Canadian Government’s Cultural Value of Employable Women” in the PSUR! 
They are also the VP Events (Community)-elect for the PSUA, and have worked with campus organizations, such as The Landing and Residence Services, throughout their undergrad. Their favourite Political Science courses have been POL S 302 (Intro to Critical Disability Theory) and POL S 448 (Gender, Media, and Politics), and would recommend them to all students. 
When interviewed, Hayle said that “I genuinely believe that publishing with the PSUR shaped my undergraduate experience in ways that made me a better writer and student … Publishing your work as an undergrad is a privilege and an opportunity”. Read further to hear about Hayle’s research, their experience submitting to journals, and their advice for taking constructive criticism as a learning experience. 

Hi Hayle! What inspired you to research the specific topic of your paper?
I wrote this paper as a final for POL S 225 back in Fall 2020! I was interested in how social movements and political culture influence policy decisions and government spending. I was also so interested in seeing how social movements of feminism and narratives of women in the workplace could be tracked and analyzed through the language used in official government documents and speeches. This paper reflects my interests in cultural norms and attitudes surrounding politics. I think it is important to pay attention to what and who governments prioritize in their agendas, as it can reflect a lot about our society's priorities and opinions!

What was the most interesting thing you learned from researching/writing your paper?
I connected unique feminist social movements in Canada to an analysis of Budget Speeches in 1965, 1987, and 2018. I think the most interesting takeaway from my research is how this sort of research approach could have been done by hundreds of students, across different periods, and the results would all be important. I would love to see someone take a similar approach to examine more modern Budget Speeches or government documents in terms of social movements and governmental policies we’ve seen in the past 2 to 3 years. I for sure have used and built upon the research I did in this paper on feminism movements in Canada for other courses and papers, so that has been valuable to me and my research interests! I learned a lot about political research and methods while writing this. This paper was actually my first time doing a content discourse analysis.

What made you want to submit to the PSUR?
I was encouraged to submit to the PSUR by friends who worked on the journal! I actually submitted a paper for the special Charter 40 edition and my article was not selected. The peer review process was so helpful and I learned so much from trying that I wanted to give myself another shot! I took the feedback that I had received on my writing from peer reviewers and the experience I had from another year of coursework and writing and edited this paper to submit.

What was the submission and peer-review process like for you? And what was the most valuable part
Submitting my work to the PSUR and undergoing the copyediting process was probably one of the most challenging and valuable things I have done in my undergrad. It can be kind of brutal to have this paper that received a good grade come back to you with all these comments and markups, but I was really lucky in having amazing people work with my paper! I was constantly blown away by how kind and helpful the people with the PSUR were. I was able to receive help and editing on my paper, I also had the opportunity to receive some super helpful degree and coursework advice. I genuinely believe that publishing with the PSUR shaped my undergraduate experience in ways that made me a better writer and student. Oftentimes I find, as students, we don’t have the opportunity to fully engage with other people about our writing and research. Having other people ask me questions and offer suggestions about my paper forced me to think more deeply about my perspective and allowed me to consider others!

What would you say to someone who is considering submitting their work to the PSUR?
100% submit your work to the PSUR. If you have papers that meet the journal requirements, submit them! I have been rejected and accepted to undergrad journals, and every time I have learned so much. You will be a better writer and feel more connected to the academic community by undergoing the peer-review process. Publishing your work as an undergrad is a privilege and an opportunity. I would encourage everyone to try and work with the PSUR or a student journal in some way during their undergrad.

What is a piece of advice that you would give to students as they write papers that they might submit to the PSUR?
Stick to a schedule, follow deadlines, respect your peer reviewers, and try really hard to not take constructive criticism too personally!

Find out more information about the journal by visiting our website.

PSUR Writer's Feature: Salma Ibrahim

Salma Ibrahim is a fourth year Sociology major and Biological Science minor, and completed a certificate from the Peter Lougheed Leadership College last year. Her paper “Religion and the Law: Bill 21 and its Dysfunctionalities'' was published in the PSUR’s Special Edition: The Charter at Forty. We sat down with Salma to learn more about the contemporary relevance of her article, the process of being published in a peer-reviewed journal, and her advice for students considering submitting their own work.

The Special Edition allowed submissions of papers that were written in non-Political Science courses if they related to the Charter. What inspired the topic of your paper?
This was a term paper that I did for Soc 429 (Sociology of Law) where we looked at how the law interacts with different aspects of our lives. I specifically chose law and religion, because I was really looking forward to writing about Bill 21, which is the bill in Quebec that is known to restrict the wearing of religious symbols, turbans, skullcaps, and hijabs. As a Muslim woman who wears hijab myself, I really wanted to look at that. Especially because around the time that I was writing it in Winter 2021, there was a spike in the City of Edmonton in hate crimes and physical violence towards Muslim women wearing the hijab, so I thought that a good topic for the paper would be to look at how hijab interacts with the law and the freedom to practice religion in Canada. Some might say that it’s a sensitive topic, but I think it’s a topic that’s really worth exploring. 

What was the most interesting thing you learned from researching your paper?
What struck me most in my research about the bill was that school teachers counted as public servants. I was reading stories about hijabi women or women who wore turbans and how they had just graduated from their teaching programs to work in Quebec but wouldn’t be able to get a job after all those years of education and training. As a hijabi myself, I can sympathize deeply with them, but being far away from where that bill is taking place, it sort of puts some distance. Through researching this I understood more about what’s going on to other girls like me, my own sisters from other places. 

How would you describe the peer-review process?
This process was very intimate - there were two peer review stages where they read through my entire essay word for word, giving me suggestions of what to add, what to move, different ways of wording things. It was very in-depth and I was grateful for that. I tried to take all of their ideas and mesh them together to make some of the edits. One of my goals has always been to work on my writing and I deeply wanted to make this paper as good as it could be, so I’m really thankful for them going over it. At the end of the day, the suggestions that they gave me only made my writing more powerful. 

What would you say to someone who is considering submitting their work to the PSUR?
I would say don’t doubt yourself and your writing capabilities. It can be intimidating to send in something for other people to read outside of class, but it’s worth it. It’s really good to try and get something published while you’re still in your undergrad, and I hadn’t learned about it until near the end - for me, getting published before I graduate was such a treat. If you want you can always talk to your professor first who knows the assignment very well or utilize the writing centre on campus. I was very hesitant to submit my paper, thinking maybe it wouldn’t be good enough, but I believed in it and knew there was value to it. Send it in, what’s the worst that could happen? 

Want to submit your essay to the PSUR? Find more information on our website. 

PSUR Writer's Feature: Kyle Paziuk

Kyle Paziuk is a Political Science student at the University of Alberta who recently published an article in the Political Science Undergraduate Review (PSUR). When interviewed about the experience, he said that “what you get out of it is far more than the work you have to put into it.” Read further to hear about Kyle’s research, his experience submitting multiple articles to the PSUR, and how his opinion on receiving feedback on his writing changed in a positive way.

Introduce yourself (name, pronouns, program, name of paper, anything else interesting about you or your work)
“Hi, I’m Kyle (pronouns he/him), I’m in the Honors program of Political Science in my fourth year, and the name of my paper is “Virtue and Virtu: A Debate in the Importance of Values and Justice for Leaders of State”.”

What inspired you to research the specific topic of your paper?
“I wrote it in June of 2020, which was a year after the provincial election in Alberta where the UCP won and Jason Kenney became the premier. At that time, Alberta hadn’t changed that much [as a result of the election] but I think we knew that it was going to, and I think that election was about the kind of leader that we want to have and the kind of province we want to be, so that kind of pushed me [to write about it]. Also looking at the US and knowing that they were trending toward an election, and [thinking about] what happened to them during their last one and what was about to happen in their next one, and just trying to choose the kind of leaders we want and the qualities that those leaders represent in all of us when we elect them to office.”

What was the most interesting thing you learned from researching your paper? 
“I think the reason why the words are in the title of the paper is because of the difference in definition: when I wrote those, I had just read The Republic ... and then when you read The Prince, you realize that the meaning of what the leaders have to act like and be like and the qualities they have to have are quite different according to Macchiaveli and Plato. So I think the biggest difference was just seeing through history how those qualities change, and how they represent the people that those leaders are elected to represent. And that surprised me for sure - Plato obviously being one of the original minds of politics, and Macchiaveli coming later - just seeing how much [the qualities] changed was probably the biggest thing that I found most interesting.”

What made you want to submit to the PSUR?
“I had heard about [the PSUR] through a class talk or two and Instagram. I actually remember being on my couch one night, going through my papers and anonymizing them, and I sent eight or nine in - really hoping maybe one caught their eye, but not thinking that any of them would, frankly - I didn’t think much of it, and then I remember getting an email about it a couple of weeks later, and then the process got going. So it was casual at the beginning and my hopes weren’t up by any means, but I’m happy with how it turned out.”

A related question - how did you identify which papers you wanted to submit?
“Like I said, I sent in eight or nine - they were all pretty different. I put in pretty much every one that got an A- or above, and knowing that they were all different and covered a lot of topics I was hoping that one would be chosen for that reason. So obviously one was, and I’m happy about that, but they were all different and I had no clue which one was going to make it - if any - because their topics were all so varying.”

What was the peer-review and copyediting process like for you? And what was the most valuable part?
“Until now, I was the kind of person who did not like asking for people’s opinions on my papers. I was kind of in my own little world, and I would edit quite a bit but I would usually get to the place that I wanted to go on my own and without a lot of help from others and others’ views and comments. And for the most part it hadn’t hurt me so far - it had led me to some very good papers. So I found that at the beginning, the peer review process was a bit more involved than I expected - it was a lot of emails and back and forth - but over time I came to really appreciate it. It definitely changed my opinion on having other people read your work. I’m going into an Honors project this year and we’re always reading each others’ work and I think that’s easier because I had to go through this process with the PSUR. So it definitely changed my opinion on getting feedback from others.”

So, you submitted your paper earlier and now you’re on the team as a peer reviewer. What led to that process of you wanting to then join the team and peer review for other people’s papers?
“I remember the application going out and thinking ‘I’ve never worked in this kind of job before’; however, I had gone through the process so I was hoping that was going to help me in the interview and in what would be asked of me. I was curious to be on the other end of it. In a sense, I didn’t want to go through the process again - I kind of wanted to be on the other side of it and see how that goes. After submitting once, I was more curious to see the inner workings [of the PSUR] and to read more, too. You get to read a lot of papers by doing this, and not just your own, which like I said, I learned over the past year that you learn a lot from reading other peoples’ work, so that’s a big reason that pushed me to do it.” 

What would you say to someone who is considering submitting their work to the PSUR? Is there any advice you would give or any recommendations?
“I would say that what you get out of it is far more than the work you have to put into it. There is work you have to put into it - in the peer review process you’re quite involved and making the changes that are recommended and you’re in a dialogue with your editor - it takes some time, but it’s very laid back for the most part. What you can take out of it from the lessons and from having a person help you along the way is a lot more important than the time it takes to actually edit your paper. So I think that would be the most important thing. Submitting your papers is very casual, the peer review process is very casual, but the lessons are not casual: they are important and they’re helpful.”

Want to submit your essay to the PSUR? Find more information on our website. 

PSUR Writer's Feature: Alexis Alford

Alexis Alford is a Political Science student at the University of Alberta who recently published an article in the Political Science Undergraduate Review (PSUR). When interviewed about the experience, she said that she considers being published to be one of her “greatest achievements”. Read further to hear about Alexis’s research, her experience submitting to the PSUR, why she became part of the PSUR peer review team, and her advice for other students.

Introduce yourself (name, pronouns, program, name of paper, anything else interesting about you or your work)
“My name is Alexis Alford, my pronouns are she/her, I’m entering my fourth year of Political Science here at the U of A with a minor in Arts and Cultural Management, and I published with the PSUR last year, with my paper “Unmasking the Democratic Man: A Modern Application of Plato’s The Republic.””

What inspired you to research the specific topic of your paper?
“I started my paper back in September of 2020, and during that time the mask mandate was new, and it seemed like every other news article was about an anti-mask movement spokesperson or a protest that was happening that weekend. It kept coming up repeatedly in the media, so it was something that was kind of at the front of my mind, and I found myself with a lot of questions regarding the anti-mask movement and those that were participating in the movement. I was reading Plato’s Republic for Poli Sci 211, and we were reading where Plato describes different forms of governance, and the type of society that those different forms of governance create. When we got to democracy and Plato began describing the Democratic Man and the Democratic Society, I couldn’t help but notice clear similarities between the type of man Plato believed a democracy creates and those that were participating in the anti-mask movement. As I kept picking up on all of these similarities I decided to write a short op-ed for the class on it, and when I was done, I realized that there was so much more that I wanted to expand upon. So I ended up writing that paper in December as my final paper for the class, and once I was finished with the paper, I didn’t want to stop the research - so I decided to submit to the PSUR.”

What was the most interesting thing you learned from researching your paper?
“The most interesting part for me was the relevance of The Republic in our society now - because The Republic is thousands of years old, and so you’re not expecting it to be incredibly relevant, and yet there were distinct similarities throughout. Plato talks about the concept of ‘equality of thought’ that becomes prevalent in a democracy, where everyone has their voice heard - every vote matters, every voice is equal - and when you have a system set up that way, [the options of] those that are informed and those that are misinformed are equally weighted. We found that a lot in the anti-mask movement, where doctors and professionals that were advocating for the mask mandate were being challenged by those that believed it was ‘morally wrong’ or that it was ‘scientifically inaccurate’. The equality of thought was a big part of it for me. 
Another aspect that I thought was quite interesting was when Plato discusses how, in a democracy, the democratic man will have no one above them in any way. So the government will try to tell them how to live their lives, or guide them in the right direction, because the Greeks believed that politics was a vehicle for change. Plato did not support democracy: he thought that you should be a philosopher, that you should be qualified to be in government; there should be some checks and balances in place. And so if no one is driving that vehicle for change, society stagnates,and a government’s job is to guide the vehicle towards the common good and towards a better life. The democratic man will not be guided anywhere. The democratic man will protest any change to their lifestyle, any imposition from the government - he will not stand anything being changed that is not of his free will. This results in a society where individual rights and freedoms are put far above the common good.
And we saw that in the mask mandate - it was a clear example where society needed to work together in order to combat a common ‘evil’ and go towards the common good. There were claims that this was an infringement on a constitutional right, on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - that we as people cannot have this imposition put on us by the government. Plato said that with a democratic man, the moment that there is imposition there is protest in response, there is pushback in response. And we saw that almost immediately with the mask mandate, so I found that to be really fascinating - that a text that is thousands of years old can be so incredibly relevant and can apply in so many different aspects of one movement.”

What made you want to submit to the PSUR?
“The biggest deciding factor for me to submit to the PSUR was that I didn’t want the research to end. I didn’t want this paper to just be read by a professor and then be put away on my hard drive forever. And I knew that there was a lot of potential with the idea that I had, and it was new enough that there was no existing academic work in that area. I looked for existing literature comparing Plato’s Republic to the anti-mask movement, and there was a niche that was void, and it had to be filled. So I really wanted to be able to take my paper to the next level, see it be published, and see it contribute to academic literature in that way.
When I decided that was going to be the case, I took some time and amped up the paper a little bit - made it a bit longer because there was a word count limit on the class, and then I decided to submit it, just to see where the paper could go and how much more it could improve.”

What was the submission and peer-review process like for you? 
“It challenged me a lot, but it was the type of challenge where I’m thinking in different ways and I’m considering different aspects of the paper that I wouldn’t have, had I not submitted to the PSUR. It challenged me to really think critically about my paper - think about all the counterarguments that could be made, solidify my voice in the paper, and take a hard stance on things. And it was definitely challenging, it’s hard to get that document back when it has a lot of mark-ups, but all of that pushed me to become a far better writer than I would have been without the process.
I had the support of the PSUR team the whole way - they were always available to answer any questions that I had; they were available to meet to talk about ways that I could strengthen and improve this paper so that by the time it reaches publication it’s the strongest it can be. Having that support from the journal was huge. It made the biggest difference for me. So while they were challenging me to think differently, to write differently, to push myself; they were there to cheer me on and help me with it the whole way.”

And what was the most valuable part of that process for you?
“The most valuable part was definitely the feedback I received from the peer-reviewers and copyeditors, because it wasn’t just feedback that was specific to that paper, it was feedback I could apply to all of the papers that I wrote after it. So as you’re learning different structures of a paper and how to better articulate your ideas and thoughts, and once your arguments become more solidified, you can utilize that in other papers, which is huge. So I did notice a huge improvement in my writing from before working with the PSUR and after. Because yes, of course it’s specific to that paper, but it’s universal enough that you can apply it to all your future work. So I would say that definitely that was the most valuable part. It also taught me how to better receive constructive criticism, because they are just looking to get you the best paper possible and they want to help you in that process. They really want to be there and see you do well - it’s hard to receive any form of criticism, but now I know how to take it and how to use it and how to make my papers even better, and that was huge.” 

Can you touch on the time commitment of the submission process? How manageable was it for you?
“I found the time commitment to be very manageable, and it was at no point unrealistic. The journal works really well to not require extensive edits or changes around exam time - whether it’s midterms or finals. It was like adding another paper to the pile of papers that I had to do, but I wasn’t working from the ground up. It was edits and changes rather than entirely new ideas, so I could just do half an hour a day for a week and I would have my changes and edits done. The time commitment was something I was concerned about going in, but with the support of the journal, if I needed an extension they were able to give it to me, and I found that I wanted to work on this paper, I wanted to make it better, I wanted to give it the time that it needed, and it was like a break from all my other papers because it was fun, and I was getting to work on something that I was really proud of. So there is a slight time commitment but it’s not unmanageable or unreasonable, and it doesn’t feel like a big time commitment.”

You’re now a peer reviewer with the PSUR: how does it feel to be on the other side of things? And would you say that being published was kind of a stepping stone to other opportunities for you?
“Being a peer reviewer definitely helped me understand the publication process further, because going into my submission, I didn’t actually know what the academic publication process was like - it all felt very much like ‘behind the scenes’ and as a student, you just read the papers once you’re done. As an author, I got to see how the process works to better the author’s paper with each step, and now as a peer reviewer I’m understanding why you get the feedback in the order that you do, and how the journal works in order to produce the best papers that it can. I’m quite empathetic towards the authors, because I’ve been in those shoes so I understand how terrifying the vulnerability is when you do submit or when you do receive feedback from the journal, and so I love now that I have the opportunity to help other students - that I have the opportunity to assist them in bettering their papers and turning them into incredible authors and academics, and expanding their thinking. Being a part of that process and having received that feedback feels like I’m coming full circle - the PSUR helped me grow, and now I have the opportunity to help others grow, and still to learn from it. When I see the feedback that other peer reviewers or copy editors have given the paper, I can better my understanding of how to read the next one, or how to write my next paper. You’re still learning so much from these authors even through a blind review process. You can see something in a paper and think ‘I really love how they structured this argument, I can utilize this to help others structure their arguments, or I can utilize this in my next paper’. It’s a constant learning process, and there was definitely a learning curve through the publication process and now through the peer review process, but everyone has been incredibly supportive and it’s been a fantastic experience to come full circle and help others in the way that the journal helped me.”

What would you say to someone who is considering submitting their work to the PSUR?
“Go for it. You have nothing to lose, and it’s a blind review process at the beginning, so even if you don’t get selected for publication at the beginning, you’re still receiving valuable feedback from the peer reviewers, and you have the opportunity to re-submit later. Go for it - there really is nothing to lose and everything to gain, and the feeling of publication is unbelievable. And putting out something that you can be incredibly proud of and put your name to is an experience that not many people get to have, so we’re so fortunate to have this opportunity at the U of A with the PSUR - so utilize it. All that can happen is that you can become a better author.”

Want to submit your essay to the PSUR? Find more information on our website. 

PSUR Writer's Feature: Hailey Lothamer

Hailey Lothamer (she/her) is a Political Science student at the University of Alberta who recently published an article in the Political Science Undergraduate Review (PSUR). When interviewed about the experience, she said that being published in the PSUR really “connected [her] to the greater Political Science community at the U of A”. Read further to hear about Hailey’s research, her experience submitting to the PSUR, how the experience will benefit her in her Political Science Honours program, and her advice for other students. 

Introduce yourself (name, pronouns, program, name of paper, anything else interesting about you or your work)
“My name is Hailey Lothamer and I use she/her pronouns. I’m currently majoring in Political Science and I am going into my third year of that with a minor in Spanish. And the title of the paper that I submitted to the PSUR is called ‘Section 35 of the Constitution Act and Indigenous Self-Determination in Canada’.”

What inspired you to research the specific topic of your paper?
“Well I wrote it last fall - so Fall 2020 - for a Canadian Politics class and at the time there was a lot of conversation in the news around Indigenous rights and also land use rights. Particularly, I can recall one case of the Mi'kmaq in Nova Scotia. I’m not sure if you guys heard anything about that but there was a lot of controversy about what extent their fishing rights were. And I think that topic in and of itself I was really inspired by… Indigenous peoples’ self-determination and their resiliency in fighting for their fishing rights. So I decided to do a little bit more research into that and that really inspired the central topic behind my paper.”

What was the most interesting thing you learned from researching your paper?
“That’s a big question. I learned so much obviously but one thing that I found really interesting was just this paradoxical situation that currently surrounds Indigenous rights in Canada in the sense that Indigenous rights are something that goes beyond Canadian common law and our colonial history so it is not really legitimated by it but also at the same time just the actualization of their rights and how they’re enacted in Canada at the moment is really dependent on our judicial system of course and that’s unfortunate because I think it should be recognized beyond that. But at the same time, I think it’s a really interesting situation that currently exists because I think there is so much we could do beyond that.”

What made you want to submit to the PSUR?
“Well I was taking - as I mentioned - a few Poli Sci classes in the fall and I had lots of professors that had mentioned the PSUR and how great the student team was that ran it. Obviously very true. They included it in their announcements and the likes. But, in particular, I had one Prof who really encouraged me to get involved in the Political Science community beyond the classroom and he kind of mentioned the PSUR as a great way to do that so I was really inspired by that to submit it (submit my paper that is) and I think he was definitely right about how it's made me feel more involved in the Political Science union.”

What was the submission and peer-review process like for you? 
“The submission process was a bit stressful but that was my own fault because I left it until the night of the deadline to submit it. It’s pretty bad… it was like two hours before the deadline that I submitted my paper. But it was really cool honestly because I think in doing so... I had never written an abstract before and I noticed that was one thing that was required so I thought that was an interesting thing for me to do and obviously a very valuable experience because I’m sure at some point or another I will have to write an abstract. I think doing that for the submission process was super cool. And the peer-review process I honestly loved. It was very out of my comfort zone I would say for myself in having to talk to so many different people about something that I wrote and it’s obviously a little bit strange to have it so scrutinized and teared apart in a sense but honestly everyone at the PSUR was so supportive and it was a fantastic experience because I think I got to go deeper into my work which is something you don’t really do in those class peer-review sessions. It was really interesting to see everyone’s feedback and also really get into my own work a bit more and learn about my own writing style. Overall it was a very valuable process for me.”

And what was the most valuable part of that process for you?
“One thing I’ll definitely take away from this process is the organization structure of writing such an article or a paper. I think before, as writing my own papers, I really kind of get in my own head about doing that and it’s not really much forethought that goes into that. Having the peer-reviewers and copy-editors look over my paper, I think it was really valuable for them to go over overarching things like ‘oh, can we move this paragraph with the other one?’ and really get into bigger details such as organization that doesn’t really come up for me so much so I think that was a really valuable process. And also just like really critically analyzing ‘is this a necessary part of my article?’ was really great for me because it’s not something that I feel you get into very much in the classroom and so having other brilliant students take a look at your work and be like ‘it might be stronger if you do this’ and make suggestions and give feedback was incredibly valuable for me.”

Is there anything that you can think of that maybe you wish you had known at the beginning of the process or that you might have done differently?
“Well definitely I would have submitted earlier. That’s a big one. I think something else that I would have liked to have known is just… I guess I think it would have made a difference for me to know more about the team or just know that you guys as a team are so supportive and I think that was maybe a bit of having a more virtual experience that I didn’t know anybody who was part of the PSUR copy-editing team or their administrative staff. But I think I would have loved to know that you guys are real individuals and real students like myself who also have similar passions and are so encouraging and supportive throughout the process. That was really a pleasant surprise for me to have”

You have been published in your undergraduate degree which is amazing. What is next for you?
“What is next for me? Well. Big question. I think I really hope to, at least in regards to this experience, build on it during my Honours sessions for Political Science. I am really excited to be doing my Honours part of my thesis in my third year or start researching for that at least. In terms of what’s next, I really hope to use this process as a valuable stepping point and kind of go from there because I think it’s really inspired probably what I will do in terms of what topic I will research. I hope to do that next at least.”

What would you say to someone who is considering submitting their work to the PSUR?
“I would say ‘go for it’. I’d highly encourage that individual. Like I mentioned before, it was a really important aspect of me feeling connected to the greater Political Science community at the U of A. Fantastic experience for me to get to know other people and other students and like-minded individuals who share similar passions throughout that process so that was really great for me. And also just a valuable experience of going through that process of getting peer-reviewed and also having copy-editing feedback. That was invaluable for my writing I’m sure. It was a fantastic experience overall and I’d highly encourage them to consider submitting if they haven’t already because you guys are a fantastic team and you are so supportive. I’m sure it would be a great experience for them.”

Want to submit your essay to the PSUR? Find more information on our website. 

Past PSUR Writer's Feature- Nathan Fung

Here is another previously published writer’s feature, enjoy xx

Twitter handle: @FungNathan_K

What was the title of your published paper and what class was it written for?

"Omar Khadr: A Bleak Mark on Canadian Civil Rights" which was written for Dion Blythe's Pol S 324 class: Multiculturalism and the Law.

Why did you decided to submit your paper?

I'd been meaning to write for the Political Science Undergraduate Review for a while so I was happy to do so once I had a paper that fit the PSUR's criteria.

Favorite political science class as of yet?

My favorite class might be Linda Trimble's Pol S 421 class: media and politics in Canada. It was a chance for me to combine two of my interests in one course: politics and journalism.

Any extracurricular activities/travel/work experience that shaped your UofA experience?

The extracurricular that defined my undergraduate experience at the University of Alberta has to be working with The Gateway student paper. I'd been interested in journalism since I was in high school, and my experience with The Gateway — as a volunteer from 2014 to 2017, then as a staff member from 2017 to present — has taught me a lot about writing, how media and newspapers work, the kinds of skills you need to work in the industry, and more.

How have you used/learned from the publication process?

I think the biggest thing is just reaching out to the editors of the publication you want to be in, and taking the first step. The other thing is to fit your writing to the publication.

What is the post valuable aspect of your political science degree?

I think the most valuable part of my political science degree is finding ways to break down complex ideas into simpler parts, which helps in getting it out to a more general audience that might have a weaker understanding of those ideas. 

Fun fact about you 

When I ran into Beto O'Rourke during a visit to Washington DC in 2016, he accidentally knocked an audio recording device from my hand with his hand gestures.

Past PSUR Writer's Features

Hear from past published authors…. hopefully their experiences encourage you all to submit your papers!!

MATTHEW BOYD- 4th Year Political Science Major and East Asian Studies Minor

Research Interest: Japanese nationalism and identity formation, Shintō studies, and state-society relations in Japan.

Twitter: @thematthewboyd

 What was the title of your published paper and what class was it written for?

The title of my published paper was “China’s Balancing Act: Examining China-DPRK Relations in an Era of Political Uncertainty” and was originally submitted as a term paper for POL S 445: Topics in Globalization in Governance (Chinese Foreign Policy) in Fall 2017.

Why did you decide to submit your paper

I originally heard about the opportunity to have papers published in the PSUR from the PSUA website. It’s a rare opportunity for undergraduate students to have the opportunity to experience the peer-review process before graduate school, so I immediately jumped at the opportunity. As it is my intention to pursue graduate studies after my degree, I wanted to gain experience going through the process of peer-review and publication. The feedback I received on my writing was fantastic.

Favourite political science class as of yet?

Without a doubt my favourite political science class has been POL S 475: Politics of Japan and China with Ashley Esarey. Few courses pushed me to think as critically and develop my writing skills as much as this class did.

Any extracurricular activities/travel/work experience that shaped your UofA experience?

I had the opportunity to travel to Japan for the past two summers of my degree, and it was a fantastic experience. When your research interest is region-based, nothing can compare to the context you can get by seeing it in person. These trips allowed me to supplement my existing research projects on Japan with further context, but also let me further develop my language skills. If you have the opportunity to travel during or after your degree, I absolutely recommend it.

 How have you used/learned from the publication process?

The publication and peer review process has provided me with some of the best feedback I have ever received on my written work. The type of comments you get while going through the process goes above and beyond what you get in a classroom environment. Because several people are reading your work, the comments you get back really push you to improve your writing ability. The skills I learned as part of this process have further equipped me with the necessary skills to create my graduate school applications.

What is the post valuable aspect of your political science degree?

The biggest advantage of a political science degree is its flexibility. This degree has taught me to think critically and to read carefully, to write skillfully and to challenge existing assumptions. These are skills that are useful in all lines of work, and not just academia. Because of the numerous areas of study within the political science department, I have had the freedom to choose a specific research interest to apply these skills to, which has really opened up the door for so many more opportunities.

SYLVIA WONG- Junior Policy Analyst at Natural Resources Canada

Name, program of study, year of study, special interest/future interest: 

Sylvia Wong, U of A graduate, working in government but hoping to take the LSAT next year. 

What was the title of your published paper and what class was it written for?

The name of my published paper was Canada’s Urban Indigenous Populations: Comparing Policy Learning in Winnipeg and Edmonton for Jim Lightbody's 400 level Metropolitan Government class (POL 435) .

Why did you decided to submit your paper? 

Not only does it look good on your resume to include a peer-reviewed and published paper, but you are also able to practice your writing skills and go through the process of having your paper read by someone other than your professor. Not to mention, it feels great to see your hard work shared with fellow classmates, and not just used to get a grade for class! 

Favourite political science class as of yet?

Either Dr. Jared Wesley's "Topics in Canadian Politics" class (POL 421) or his "Topics in Canadian Public Policy: Intergovernmental Relations in Canada" class (POL 440)! Both were highly engaging and interactive, which not only takes you out of a traditional classroom setting, but also gives you lots of opportunities to contribute and discuss with your classmates. These classes also taught me important skills such as writing a briefing note, research, negotiating, and public speaking that I now use at my job. 

Any extracurricular activities/travel/work experience that shaped your UofA experience?

A highlight of my undergraduate career was definitely my internship at the Canadian Embassy in Washington, D.C. It was such an eye-opening experience working in a foreign country, and I fell in love with the city. I got to see the inner workings of international relations first hand, and the different experiences I had, whether it was handing out pamphlets on Capitol Hill or listening in on a think-tank discussion, made me appreciate the importance of politics even more. Other highlights include Inauguration Day (the food at the embassy was certainly a bigger highlight than Trump), and meeting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau! 

What is the most valuable aspect of your political science degree?

Obtaining research, writing, and analytical thinking skills. Learning how to write clearly and concisely is so important, especially when your job depends on it. While my other major in English certainly helped hone my skills in this department, political science classes forced me to close-read and do analytical thinking!

Fun fact about you (poli sci related or not!)

I've been to Tibet!