Americanhttp://abs.sagepub.com/
Behavioral Scientist
Listening to President Obama: A Short Examination of Obama's
Communication Practices
Efe Sevin, Spencer Kimball and Mohammed Khalil
American Behavioral Scientist 2011 55: 803
DOI: 10.1177/0002764211406847
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://abs.sagepub.com/content/55/6/803
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for American Behavioral Scientist can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://abs.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://abs.sagepub.com/content/55/6/803.refs.html
>> Version of Record - May 6, 2011
What is This?
Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at American University Library on April 10, 2013
Article
Listening to President
Obama: A Short
Examination of Obama’s
Communication Practices
American Behavioral Scientist
55(6) 803­–812
© 2011 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0002764211406847
http://abs.sagepub.com
Efe Sevin1, Spencer Kimball2,
and Mohammed Khalil2
Abstract
This article brings three divergent fields of expertise together to take a closer look at
President Barack H. Obama’s first 2 years in office. From a theoretical perspective, the
changes in the understanding of communication and their impacts on international
affairs are discussed. From a domestic politics perspective, Obama’s policy making and
practices for communicating these policies to the public are assessed. Obama’s record
in responding to the demands and challenges of the 21st century are introduced from
a foreign politics standpoint. It is now known that the promises given and the practices
employed during the election campaigns encourage government transparency, open
communication, and grassroots movements. The authors argue that it is up to the
Obama presidency to fulfill the expectations of not only American citizens but also of
the global public and address current issues through the aforementioned practices.
Keywords
Obama, communication, information revolution, social media, grassroots movements,
public diplomacy
The 2008 presidential election had several “firsts” and “mosts” for American history.
Several of the authors featured in ABS’s special issue discuss a variety of topics related
to the campaigns and elections. In this article, the authors prefer to take a look at the
“aftermath” impacts of the 2008 elections from a theoretical and practical view. The
aim is to evaluate the recent incidents and developments in the world through a theoretical framework.
1
American University, Washington, D.C., USA
Emerson College, Boston, MA, USA
2
Corresponding Author:
Efe Sevin, American University, School of International Service,
4400 Massachusetts Ave, NW 20016 Washington, D.C., USA
Email: efe.sevin@american.edu
Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at American University Library on April 10, 2013
804
American Behavioral Scientist 55(6)
More than 2 years have passed since President Barack Obama took office. These
2 years did not witness global miracles or disasters. In other words, the world did not
experience any fundamental changes. Over a year has passed since President Obama
delivered his well-received speech in Cairo, Egypt. Yet the tensions between the
United States and the Muslim world have not ended.
Nonetheless, the world has experienced significant change during Obama’s term.
Iran went through what is called a “Twitter Revolution” by the mass media. Sudanese
people voted on their future. Tunisian and Egyptian people went to the squares, both in
real and virtual worlds, to make their voices heard. As of this writing, other countries in
the Middle East, such as Bahrain, have witnessed popular protests. Did the “Obama
effect” have an impact on these events? How should the United States and democracies
worldwide respond to these developments? At this juncture, what are the theoretical
and practical perspectives regarding creating communication bridges with the rest of
the world?
This article is different from a traditional research paper. The authors opted to offer
their theoretical expertise, practical political knowledge, and familiarity with international affairs together to provide the reader with a comprehensive description, or what
one might label a “thick” perspective. The authors are all strong supporters of open
communication channels and grassroots movements to foster mutual understanding and
cooperation among cultures. With an emphasis on communication, the authors’ objective in this article is to evaluate the role of technological advancements and the changes
in media platforms on the global political scene and American politics.
Communication 2.0: A New Era?
Given the fact that communication is the focal point of this article, it is appropriate
to start by asking questions about this social phenomenon. One of the earliest models,
Shannon and Weaver’s Model, can be labeled as the main seeds out of which communication studies have grown (Fiske, 1990, p. 6). Subsequent studies tried to expand the
model and increase its explanation. Yet regardless of their complexity, all communication
theories acknowledge the existence of a sender, a receiver, a message, and a medium. So,
what is important in a communication process?
Marshall McLuhan, a prominent communication scholar of the 1960s, argues that
medium is important. According to him, each medium is unique and bestows individuals
with new capabilities that depend on one or a ratio of our senses (McLuhan, 1962) to
make meaning of the reality around us. His famous phrase, “the medium is the message”
(McLuhan, 1967) underlines the importance of the platform used in delivering the
message to target audiences. In his later works, McLuhan claims that the communication
tools used in a society have an impact on culture. In other words, culture changes might
be caused by the shifts in communication technologies and vice versa.
Contemporary studies on technology and communication are carried out under the
umbrella of media ecology. This field of study stems from the idea that technology and
techniques of communication have a definitive impact on meaning making and knowledge acquisition (Strate, 2008). A medium, as Neil Postman defines it, is a technology
Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at American University Library on April 10, 2013
805
Sevin et al.
within which a culture grows; that is to say, it gives form to a culture’s politics, social
organization, and habitual ways of thinking (Postman, 2000). Alfred Korzybski, one
of the forerunners of media ecology as described by Postman, discusses the relation
between the “natural environment” and “symbolic environment” (Korzybski, 1926). He
looked at the impacts of language on creating the symbolic reality (Korzybski, 1933/1958).
Linking his ideas with insights and precepts of media ecology, one can claim that humans
use abstraction and symbols to make meaning out of the natural environment in which
they live and share with others. The “abstraction” process takes place through language—
in other words, through using communication symbols. In short, Korzybski supports
the media ecology school of thought, by underlining the importance of communication
tools in constructing symbolic environment while calling attention to the natural environment in which people actually live.
Given the complexity of the real world (Lippmann, 1922), and the decreasing levels
of social interaction (Putnam, 2001), individuals rarely enjoy the opportunity to experience the events firsthand. This is why they rely on the messages they receive to form
their opinions. With the effects of globalization, especially with the advancement of
computer technologies (Hayden, 2010), individuals are more aware of the events taking
places in the other parts of the world. Their “environment” in this sense, and thanks to
technology, has expanded to cover a larger portion of our increasingly shared global
village.
In this new era, a communicator is faced with several diverse—often disparate—
audiences. In this complex and global framework, which audience is primary or more
important than another? When crafting messages and considering various cultures and
levels of literacy and technological abilities, should a decision maker focus more on the
impact of technology, or on the audience demographics, or both? In the following section, the discussion discusses the impact of communication tools and the level and
complexity of communication (i.e., mass communication, people-to-people communication) in the effort to describe and assess the framework in which political actors
transmit their messages.
Communication Tools
One can no longer deny the fact that we live in a network society (Castells, 1996). The
social and media networks shape the way individuals think, interact, behave, and organize. In line with the Media Ecology understanding, it is not surprising to find that new
information and communication technologies (ICTs) had major impacts on communication. The interaction in online communication technologies (Ling, 2008) enabled
users to be active, engaged (re)actors, (re)makers, and (re)distributors of information
(Pepe, Reddy, Nguyen, & Hansen, 2009). For today’s youth, revolutions are recognizable by their hashtags. #Jan25, #CNNFail, and #Iranelection not only helped
people to organize; such symbols also created shared memories of identification for
such publics.
Twitter and Facebook have been mentioned countless times in the accounts of
recent developments in the Middle East and North Africa. Individuals have used the
Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at American University Library on April 10, 2013
806
American Behavioral Scientist 55(6)
aforementioned platforms to organize events and to “meet” with each other. Given that
a majority of the governments and regimes in the region do not have a favorable attitude
towards civil society organizations, ICTs became the sole viable communication method.
In addition, the United States has demonstrated its growing appreciation and value of
these methods on several occasions. In 2009, Twitter was asked by the U.S. government to delay a scheduled server maintenance to ensure activists in Iran had access
to this social media platform. The very same year, representatives from Google, AT&T,
and Twitter were invited to Iraq by Department of State officials with the aim of learning more about the actual as well as increased potential role of technology in fostering
democracy. A Google executive, and a prominent figure of the developments in Egypt,
Wael Ghonim, bluntly declared that “if you want to liberate a government, give them
the Internet” (Sutter, 2011).
Malcolm Gladwell (2010), on the other hand, points out the Achilles heel of online
communication technologies—the fact that they are built on weak ties. Individuals
“follow” people they have never met in real life, have hundreds—if not thousands—of
friends on Facebook. Yet this activism in networking is not necessarily reflected in
action. Gladwell argues that being viral helps people to organize, which is nowhere
near sufficient for a revolution. What is missing from this virtual contact is the dynamics
of human contact and the growing and nurturing of relationships that invite and establish
trust between the two parties.
Expanding on Gladwell’s views, one can argue for the exaggerated effect of these
technologies. Definitely, a revolution will not take place through tweeting. However, this
does not mean that ICTs and social media are “simple” tools. It is important to appreciate
their impacts as organizing tools, information resources, and finally a new ecology.
Level of Communication
We are living in an era where people with similar mindsets no longer need capital investment, infrastructure, or physical location to come together. As demonstrated in the most
recent examples, individuals turn out to produce and disseminate information more
quickly and efficiently than traditional media means. In this new ecosystem, the Obama
administration has the opportunity and necessity to foster programs and opportunities
that highlight the importance of individuals in the communication process as well
as the importance of human agency in creating meaning and sustaining relations within
the global technological landscape.
The remarks of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as well as those of her predecessor
Condoleezza Rice, have signaled a movement away from traditional diplomatic channels in American foreign affairs. Individuals and civil society groups are seen as actors
in international relations. Nontraditional diplomacy, specifically public diplomacy, is
seen as a viable method to directly transmit messages to target audiences. Diplomacy,
in its historic understanding, refers to intergovernmental relations. Public diplomacy
aims to take this conversation down to the individual level. In general, one can argue
that public diplomacy embraces “the attempts of governments to influence foreign
publics” (Sevin, 2010, p. 580).
Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at American University Library on April 10, 2013
807
Sevin et al.
Moreover, grassroots movements present another opportunity to communicate with
foreign audiences. As discussed above, typical definitions of public diplomacy focus
on governments reaching out to foreign audiences, yet does not tell whether “an NGO,
business and corporation, or private individuals can sponsor . . . initiatives” (Snow,
2009, p. 228). A complementary term, grassroots movements, welcomes other nongovernmental actors as message senders. By engaging in grassroots movements and
public diplomacy, the Obama administration can create direct communication bridges
with foreign publics (Payne, 2009; Snow, 2009).
However, the authors believe that neither public diplomacy nor grassroots movement
concepts can sufficiently explain the newly acquired role of individuals in the social
media bestowed era. Both terms acknowledge the importance of audience input in the
communication process. Unlike primitive international communication methods, which
were typically unidirectional and top-down, these methods focus on a two-way communication process, with the overall goal being further understanding and common
ground among the communicative agents (sender and receiver). This model does not
envision the sender simply sending out messages and expecting a change in perception
within the audience. It assumes the receiver will interpret the message, deliberate on
its meaning, and provide feedback to the sender, with the potential and expectation for
further ongoing communication acts. This type of interaction invites a dialogue instead
of a monologue.
Yet in today’s wired world, the targeted audience has more opportunities and expectations than just traditional feedback. Audiences produce information, organize groups
in reality and virtually, and challenge norms and meanings in the ongoing dialectic.
Anticipating a passive respondent role will likely result in failure of the communication
attempt. Another important term—a term that should be embraced by the current
administration—social diplomacy invites nonstate actors to participate in international relations (Czubek, 2002)and in negotiating the meaning. The “social” aspect
refers to the fact that two-way communication should be replaced by a communicative understanding. Habermasian understanding of communicative action looks at the
cooperative action undertaken by individuals based upon mutual deliberation and argumentation (Habermas, 1984)—mainly in the domestic sphere. No longer a state-dominated arena, diplomacy has become a social platform for individuals to engage in
communicative action.
Halftime for the Obama Presidency
One of the sharpest criticisms during Obama’s primary and general election campaigns
was his lack of foreign policy experience. Hillary Clinton used the “three a.m.” phone
call in an attempt to define the upstart candidate as being unprepared to lead during a
time of international conflict. Mr. Obama’s future running mate, Senator Joe Biden,
questioned the candidate during the debates about his foreign policy experience and
suggested later that if elected, Obama would be tested early. Senator McCain was
nominated by the Republican Party in part because people felt he offered the most
Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at American University Library on April 10, 2013
808
American Behavioral Scientist 55(6)
contrast with foreign policy experience. He tried to define candidate Obama as unprepared for the presidency, but the voters were not convinced.
The president’s opponents and critics were proved correct; President Obama would
be challenged by international conflict. Russia invaded Georgia within his first year in
office; Somali pirates tested him again; the uprising in Iran made his burden heavier.
Now the revolutions in Egypt, Libya, and Greece have taxed this president’s ability
to handle international crises in a time where America needs a stable global economy.
While talking heads and pundits suggest that the president’s international diplomacy
has exceeded their expectations, his domestic diplomacy provides even more fuel for
his critics.
The first example was the infamous incident in Cambridge, Massachusetts between
Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates and a police officer. During a press conference
about health care less than one week after the incident, the president had a scripted list
of reporters whom he was calling on for questions. As the conference was wrapping
up, the president looked down on his list for a last question and called on his hometown
paper, the Chicago Sun-Times, for one final question. He was asked about the incident
between Gates and Crowley; after acknowledging his lack of information on the issue,
he sided with his friend Professor Gates, saying that the police sergeant had “acted
stupidly.” He thereby made a local issue into a national issue and spent the next 10 days
backpedaling. He called the incident a “teachable moment,” and the first-ever “beer
summit” was born.
Nearly one year later, Shirley Sherrod was forced to resign from her position at the
U.S. Department of Agriculture after a carefully edited video was released suggesting
that she discriminated against a white farmer during the 1980s. Without looking at all
the facts, President Obama hastily called for her resignation, only to backpedal again
when all the facts were exposed.
These incidents illustrate perhaps the most serious problem with the president’s
communication style: an inability to learn all the facts before making a comment. As
the leader of the free world, the president is the buck-stopper. What is it about his style
that elicits derision?
In the current international climate, this summer is shaping up to be one of the most
exciting times in a generation. With the speed of communication, it is essential that the
leader of the free world does not get sidetracked by avoidable domestic issues. Political
communication scholars will be examining this third summer of the Obama administration to see what self-imposed roadblocks lie ahead. With respect to the articles in this
issue, it is clear that this work is under way.
While words alone do not a policy make, first there is the word. What will the president
say to the people and governments of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and others that will frame
the U.S. role in easing these revolutions? What is the role of diplomacy versus military
muscle-flexing? Who is America in light of the Chinese economy, and what will the
president say to the glaring issues of human rights? The old toast “may we live in interesting times” will echo early and often in this, the third summer.
Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at American University Library on April 10, 2013
809
Sevin et al.
America’s Foreign Policy Strategy
for the 21st Century
America, as the only superpower, possesses unprecedented strength and influence in the
whole world. Supported by an entrenched belief in the principles of liberty, human
dignity, and the values of a free society, this position comes with unparalleled responsibilities, obligations, opportunities, and yes, risks. The most logical thing is that this great
and strong nation must use its privileged position to promote dignity and favor freedom
especially in the Middle East, where its national interests are threatened the most.
For most of the 20th century, the Arab communities were divided by the great struggle between democratic and communist principles. The struggle then represented two
opposing moral conceptions: destructive totalitarianism versus freedom and prosperity.
That great battle was ended by the collapse of the former USSR. Many Western countries exhaled and went into a state of hibernation, counting on accelerating forces of
globalization to deliver the prosperity they promised to the embattled people of the
Arab world. The United States and its Western allies walked away from these people,
leaving them helpless under the torture machines of their oppressive regimes.
Tyrant regimes control almost all Arab countries, leaving little or no hope for peaceful
transfers of power to the people. The people of these countries find no option to express
their aspiration other than taking refuge and gaining empowerment from the few
patriotic, courageous, and righteous faith-based underground community cells. This
is how Islamist groups portray their organizations: giving hope and pride while establishing low-profile safe havens closer than ever to the grassroots. Islamist underground
militant networks promise visions of equality, righteous society, and prosperity; a
utopian solution to the oppressed, impoverished, and disenfranchised. Their winning
strategy is to stay invisible and unaccountable but operational. Their best growth environments are made possible by four conditions:
•• conditions created as a result of failed states in Africa and Asia;
•• conditions of large and liberal governance systems such as those in the West
discriminating against Muslims and Arabs, fueling grievances;
•• conditions created by tyrannical regimes in the Middle East manipulating the
public to stay in power; and
•• conditions created by weak elected governments trying to maintain order.
Failed states in Africa and Asia provide militants with grounds to establish training and
command facilities, personnel, and weapon trafficking. Conditions of large and liberal
societies provide these networks with fund-raising capabilities as well as high-value
targets for their terrorist activities. In the conditions of tyrannies, they connect better to
the grassroots for recruiting and building elaborate fund-raising apparatus; while in the
conditions of weak governments, they build advanced military and assault capabilities
without taking risk of being attacked or assuming the responsibilities of a national army.
Most of these illusive groups reached these conclusions after watching Hamas’s
Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at American University Library on April 10, 2013
810
American Behavioral Scientist 55(6)
experience in government and how the West treated this democratically elected government with contempt. Many militant groups now prefer to stay out of the political process
to avoid containment and sanctions.
Opportunities to Share Prosperity
and Enhance National Security
America and its allies are now threatened less by conquering states than they are by
failing or friendly ones whether headed by the weak or the tyrant. They are less threatened by fleets and armies than by catastrophic terrorist attacks conducted or contemplated by the few infiltrated within their communities. Managing these threats cannot be
delegated to the isolated and ailing tyrant regimes, drone strikes, or sporadic relief.
Tyrants and weak governments will eventually collapse, and America and its allies
must work on eliminating these threats by embracing long-term sustainable strategy
to address their root causes. The success of this strategy depends on five challenging
conditions:
1. Making bilateral agreements clauses between the United States and governments of Arab countries that supersede clauses in diplomatic conventions,
especially those of the Vienna 1963 clauses. This provision allows the United
States and its allies to conduct legal outreach programs/projects to connect to
the grassroots.
2. Commitment to rehabilitate local governance systems to increase grassroots
participation in governance process and pooling international aid efforts
through municipalities and village/town halls. Local governance system is the
destination of citizens to get basic social services and settle grievances.
3. Providing political, logistical, and financial support to citizens and civil institutional exchange programs to connect the grassroots to the international community.
4. Abandoning the current sanctions, embargo, and boycott policies and developing alternative compliance measures to punish rogue regimes but exclude
the people.
5. Establishing free Internet provision jurisdictions within these countries to
keep the communication between grassroots organizations uninterrupted and
uncensored.
Although this is a time of great risks for the United States, it is also a time of opportunity for America and its allies to fulfill arguably the most challenging leadership role
in the history of mankind. By stepping up to this level of responsibility, America will
work to translate this moment of unprecedented influence into decades of peace, prosperity, and liberty. U.S. national security will eventually improve as the growth conditions of these networks diminish as a result of a sustained and consistent foreign policy
strategy working directly with the grassroots.
Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at American University Library on April 10, 2013
811
Sevin et al.
Conclusions
In this article, the authors assessed contemporary communication framework, domestic
political scene, and international arena. President Obama’s performance within this
new ecosystem is discussed. Several questions about the administration’s appraisal
of current conditions are posed.
It is of the uttermost importance that the Obama presidency fulfill the expectations
created during the presidential election campaign. Obama has credibility in the eyes
of global public opinion. If not used appropriately and strategically, this credibility
might be harmful to the reputation of the United States in several regions.
Moreover, Obama should understand the current state of international politics within
the new media ecosystem. Audiences should be engaged communicatively, rather than
through one-way or two-way communication processes. Foreign publics should be
invited to cooperate in reaching common understanding of norms and values through
grassroots movements and open communication channels.
The 21st century will be distinctly defined by what America offers the world in
terms of sharing its profound values of human dignity and prosperity. The aim of this
grassroots strategy is to help make the world not just safer but better. The goals are clear:
shared political and economic prosperity, peaceful relations with other people, and universal respect for human dignity. The United States will therefore be able to lead aspirations of all humanity, empower grassroots to participate in governance, inspire neighbors
to resolve regional conflicts, deny terrorists safe havens, and expand the circle of development by opening societies to share a vision of human prosperity and completeness
instead of grievance and competitiveness.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication
of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.
References
Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Czubek, G. (2002). Social diplomacy: The case of Poland. Stefan Batory Foundation. Retrieved
from http://powiatkolobrzeg.home.pl/ngo/DOKUMENTY/DIPLOMAC.PDF
Fiske, J. (1990). Introduction to communication studies (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Gladwell, M. (2010). Twitter, Facebook, and social activism. The New Yorker. Retrieved from
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Hayden, C. (2010). Beyond determinism: Public diplomacy and new media technology in practice.
Presented at the International Studies Association, New Orleans, LA.
Korzybski, A. (1926). Time-binding: The general theory. New York, NY: E.P. Dutton.
Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at American University Library on April 10, 2013
812
American Behavioral Scientist 55(6)
Korzybski, A. (1933/1958). Science and sanity: An introduction to non-Aristotelian systems and
general semantics (4th ed.). Lakeville CT: International Non-Aristotelian Library Pub. Co.;
distributed by Institute of General Semantics.
Ling, R. (2008). New tech, new ties: How mobile communication is reshaping social cohesion.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York, NY: Free Press Paperbacks.
McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg galaxy: The making of typographic man. Toronto: University
of Toronto Press.
McLuhan, M. (1967). The medium is the message: An inventory of effects. London: Penguin.
Payne, J. G. (2009). Trends in global public relations and grassroots diplomacy. American
Behavioral Scientist, 53(4), 487-492. doi:10.1177/0002764209347635
Pepe, A., Reddy, S., Nguyen, L., & Hansen, M. (2009). Twitflick: Visualizing the rhythm and
narrative of micro-blogging activity. Presented at the Digital Arts and Culture Conference,
Irvine, CA.
Postman, N. (2000). The humanism of media ecology. Keynote Address presented at the Inaugural
Media Ecology Association Convention, New York, NY.
Putnam, R. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York,
NY: Touchstone.
Sevin, E. (2010). From visitors to cultural ambassadors: Public diplomacy and scholar exchange
programs. In Business research yearbook 2010 (pp. 578-585). Presented at the 22nd Annual
Convention of International Academy of Business Disciplines, Las Vegas, NV.
Snow, N. (2009). Persuader-in-chief: Global opinion and public diplomacy in the age of
Obama. Ann Arbor, MI: Nimble Books LLC.
Strate, L. (2008). Studying media as media: McLuhan and the media ecology approach. MediaTropes
eJournal, 1, 127-142.
Sutter, J. (2011, February 22). When the internet actually helps dictators. CNN.com. Retrieved from
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-22/tech/authoritarian.internet.morozov_1_protest-bloggersinternet-discussions?_s=PM:TECH
Bios
Efe Sevin is a doctoral candidate at the School of International Service at American University
and is the Assistant Director of Center for Research on Collaboratories and Technology
Enhanced Learning Communities (COTELCO). His research interests are strategic communication, human-computer interactions, non-traditional diplomacy, global governance, multimethod research, and research methodologies.
Spencer Kimball’s research focuses on the use of the Internet and Social Marketing in 21st
century political campaigns. He is President of Kimball Political Consulting, a nationally recognized political consulting firm with clients in over 26 states, and has experience on local,
state and federal races. He teaches courses in Argumentation & Advocacy, Public Policy and
Public Speaking.
Mohammed Khalil is an adjunct faculty at Emerson College, Department of Communication
Studies. He has extensive field experience in organizing grassroots advocacy movements in the
Middle East. Mr. Khalil holds an MPA degree from Harvard University, Kennedy School of
Government.
Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at American University Library on April 10, 2013