I have found that the University Center for Writing-based Learning’s, (UCWbL)’s, core practice “Collaboratively set an agenda to guide your work” can be easily transferred to subjects within the field of Economics. More specifically, I decided to examine the ways in which collaboratively setting an agenda factors into making monetary policy decisions. Through my research, I found many ways in which The Federal Open Market Committee meetings and tutoring appointments run parallel. This comparison has allowed me to identify ways in which FOMC meetings can provide tutors with new vantage points on agenda-setting.
What is Monetary Policy?
To begin, I find it vital to define what Monetary policy and the FOMC are before going any further. Monetary policy is the process of changing the amount of money in circulation in the United States. By doing this, the central bank is able to influence prices and employment. Eight times a year, a group of economists called The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) get together to discuss and vote on what type of monetary policy should be implemented. For example, at the next meeting, people are wondering whether the FOMC will decide to raise interest rates or keep them at the same level.
Making Connections
Through my research, I found that the structure of FOMC meetings are similar to our agenda-setting during peer tutoring appointments. The FOMC meets to discuss the current state of the economy. During these meetings, the members work together to form a plan of action that will keep the economy growing at a stable rate. Similarly, during tutoring appointments, the tutor and writer discuss the current state of the writing process and work together to form a plan of action that describes areas in which the writer can grow.
Participant Freedom
In the first source I analyzed, researchers Joseph Gardner and John Woolley looked through thirty years of FOMC meeting transcripts in attempt to answer the question: What circumstances lead to the most effective collaboration amongst FOMC members? They found that one of the main circumstances to be met is participant freedom. By this, they mean that all members should feel free to advocate for a preferred position, express concerns, offer alternatives, and ask questions. In a room full of economists with differing backgrounds and ideals, disagreements are expected. When members feel free to speak openly, diverse points of view are shared, and knowledge is spread.
I found that participant freedom can be equally as valuable for our agenda-setting during face-to-face appointments. As peer tutors, there may be times where we have different ideas than the writer on what should be on the agenda. By encouraging writers to express their opinions, we can consider new directions. In my experience, I’ve found that when I mentally lock into an agenda item before speaking with the writer, I gain a sense of tunnel vision. By providing agenda suggestions and opening the door for possible disagreement, knowledge can then be exchanged to form the best possible solution—a suitable agenda.
Balance of Power
My second source analyzes the influence the Fed Chairperson has on FOMC decisions. The Fed Chairperson is the public face of the central bank and the one who essentially guides the FOMC meetings. With this in mind, it’s important to note that the chairperson still has only one vote during meetings just like the rest of the members. Chappell et al. concluded that “the chairperson carries greater policymaking weight than rank-and-file Committee members.” When comparing this to peer tutoring appointments, I found that the tutor can be seen as the chairperson while writers are the regular committee members. Even though both partake in the collaboration process, tutors have the final say. For example, if the writer wanted to focus about grammar but I, as a tutor, think that organization is more important, I would have the right to include organization if I think it will best benefit the writer.
After further consideration, I’ve come to reevaluate this parallel. I don’t think that tutors should view themselves as having a higher influence in agenda-setting. In opposition of my initial claim, I think it would be better for us to view the tutor as chairperson while we are the rank-and-file members. Many writers come into the writing center voluntarily. Because of this, it would be disadvantageous for us to use our authority to set agenda items that writers don’t want to work on. Instead, I think it’s important that we take deeper consideration of the writers’ concerns. Rather than trying to convince writers of our reasoning, we should be more concerned with understanding where they are coming from.
Information Constraints
In addition to face-to-face agenda-setting, I found that making monetary policy decisions is also comparable to setting agendas during written-feedback. Former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke states that “if making monetary policy is like driving a car, then the car is one that has an unreliable speedometer, a foggy windshield, and a tendency to respond unpredictably and with a delay to the accelerator or the brake.” Because there are so many information constraints in analyzing our economy, deciding on monetary policy is a difficult task. There is no right or wrong decision, but instead, the FOMC must make a choice that best reflects the information available to them.
During written-feedback appointments, we are also faced with information constraints. Just as the FOMC has to make decisions based on limited economic data, we have to make decisions based on limited interaction with the writer. Because of this, we have to make educated guesses and use past experiences to guide us at times. However, in light of our uncertainties, we must remain confident in our decisions. If the FOMC made a monetary policy decision and then told U.S. citizens, “we think this will help, but who knows,” our economy would react negatively. Similarly, if we aren’t confident in our agenda choices, writers won’t take our feedback seriously.
Achieving our Goals
The last source I analyzed focused on the goals of the FOMC and the tools used to achieve those goals. In “Making Monetary Policy,” Robert Hetzel recognizes that the FOMC uses smaller goals to achieve its larger goals. For example, in order to maintain a stable economy, they could increase or decrease inflation, or work to lower unemployment, etc. Likewise, our agenda items can be seen as our smaller goals that contribute to the overall growth of the writer. What is different is that the FOMC is limited in how they achieve their goals. While they can only use three tools to incorporate monetary policy, there are a multitude of resources at our disposal for working on agenda items. For instance, if one of our agenda items is APA citations, we can look on Purdue Owl, review the physical APA handbook, or even ask other tutors for help. Having countless tools to help us achieve our goals makes tutoring a lot more relaxed than monetary policy making.
Although monetary policy and agenda-setting may initially seem to be from two different worlds, hopefully this information sheds some light on how their processes can be compared. More importantly, I hope that my research provides guidance for future agenda-setting at the UCWbL.
Works Cited
Bernanke, Ben S. “The Logic of Monetary Policy.” Vital Speeches of the Day, vol. 71, no. 6, 1 Jan. 2005, pp. 165-170. EBSCOhost, ezproxy.depaul.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=15613270&site=ehost-live&scope=site. Accessed 31 Oct. 2017.
Chappell, H. W. & McGregor, R. R. & Vermilyea, T. “Majority Rule, Consensus Building, and the Power of the Chairman: Arthur Burns and the FOMC.” Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, vol. 36 no. 3, 2004, pp. 407-422. http://professorchappell.com/Papers/JMCB_Complete_Paper_121002.pdf. Accessed 1 Nov. 2017.
Gardner, Joseph and Woolley, John. “Measuring Deliberative Conditions: An Analysis of Participant Freedom and Equality in Federal Open Market Committee Deliberation.”
Political Research Quarterly, vol. 69, no. 3, 2016, http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1065912916657186. Accessed 1 Nov. 2017
Hetzel, Robert L. “Making Monetary Policy.” CATO Journal, vol. 12, no. 1, Spring/Summer92, p. 255. EBSCOhost, ezproxy.depaul.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9604083652&site=ehost-live&scope=site. Accessed 31 Oct. 2017.