In October 2014, flyers appeared in mailboxes of Montana voters that positioned nominees for the state Supreme Court according to an ideological scale. The study, authored by researchers from Stanford and Dartmouth, was met with public outrage. The Commissioner of Political Practices in Montana asked me to vet the ethics of the study. The investigation led me to conclude that current Institutional Review Board (IRB) practices are inadequate for evaluating research involving field experiments in political science because there is no explicit attention in the process to protect a community. I believe the IRB should mandate that researchers explicitly address implications about how their research could affect the communities they study.

Survey and laboratory experiments are increasingly common in political science. Investment in experimental data collection comes with costs and benefits, particularly for graduate students and advisers. This article describes a set of institutionalized procedures we have adopted with the goal of capitalizing on the advantages that come with experimental research. This includes requiring planning documents, holding research-group meetings, and centralizing data collection. We conclude by discussing the limitations of our approach, ultimately highlighting the need for more disciplinary conversation about how to best structure research groups to produce quality research and advising.

Political science takes pride in objective and methodologically rigorous research. This should be reflected in a clear and concise writing style that convinces readers by the content of the research, not by the language used to report about it. This article demonstrates that this is true but only to a limited extent. It shows that—similar to recent findings from natural-sciences research—the frequency of positive words that political scientists use to describe their research has increased markedly in recent decades. At the same time, however, the magnitude of this increase is much less pronounced. The article discusses and analyzes potential explanations for this trend. We suspect that it can be attributed at least partly to changing norms in the discipline, in which research framed in a positive way is more likely to be published.

Is the peer-review process at academic journals gendered? The answer to this question has important implications for the advancement of women in the political science profession. However, few studies have had access to data that can evaluate whether the peer-review process is gendered. We investigate this for papers submitted to the American Political Science Review across two editorial teams to identify trends over time. We evaluate overall differences across gender, but we also present more fine-grained data to evaluate gender differences across subfield, methodology, and submitting author’s institutional affiliation and academic rank. Furthermore, we show that prior service as a reviewer is associated with a higher acceptance rate for first-time submitters. We demonstrate that the review process is not gendered. Women’s share of submissions and acceptances has risen but remains lower than their presence in the discipline.

Core graduate-level seminars, in many ways, establish the “canon” literature for scholars entering a discipline. In the study of American Politics, the contents of this canon vary widely across departments and instructors, with important implications for the perspectives to which graduate students are exposed. At a basic level, the demographic characteristics of the authors whose work is assigned can have a major impact on the diversity (or lack of diversity) of viewpoints presented in these introductory courses. Using a unique dataset derived from a survey of core American Politics graduate seminars at highly-ranked universities, this project assesses the gender diversity of the authors whose research is currently taught—overall and within a comprehensive list of topics and subtopics. We also assess the “substantive representation” of women (and other underrepresented groups) within the American Politics canon by examining the frequency with which gender, racial, and other forms of identity politics are taught in these introductory courses.

This article examines findings of a panel study of more than 1,000 students enrolled in introductory political science courses at a flagship public university. The survey assessed whether completing an introductory course had a positive effect on political efficacy, focusing on gender and race. We found that, at the aggregate level, completing an introductory political science course had little or no impact on self-reported measures of political efficacy. However, we found evidence of significant differences in external political efficacy between black and white students, even when controlling for factors such as background characteristics and course performance (i.e., grades). Our findings raise important questions about the “civic” function of the undergraduate political science curriculum, particularly regarding racial political inequalities.

Many universities use student evaluations of teachers (SETs) as part of consideration for tenure, compensation, and other employment decisions. However, in doing so, they may be engaging in discriminatory practices against female academics. This study further explores the relationship between gender and SETs described by MacNell, Driscoll, and Hunt (2015) by using both content analysis in student-evaluation comments and quantitative analysis of students’ ordinal scoring of their instructors. The authors show that the language students use in evaluations regarding male professors is significantly different than language used in evaluating female professors. They also show that a male instructor administering an identical online course as a female instructor receives higher ordinal scores in teaching evaluations, even when questions are not instructor-specific. Findings suggest that the relationship between gender and teaching evaluations may indicate that the use of evaluations in employment decisions is discriminatory against women.

Gender differences in academic performance and attitudes are widespread in male-stereotyped disciplines but rarely are studied in the social sciences. To assess the extent that gender influences the behavior of undergraduate women in political science, participation was analyzed in a large (N = 130) introductory comparative-politics class at the University of Bergen—a large public university in Norway. In the 2016 fall semester, observers documented classroom behaviors of men and women using a protocol that characterizes types of in-class participation. Findings showed that women participate less than expected given their observed numbers in the classroom. After the semester ended, we provided an opportunity for students to describe why they chose to participate and whether they felt that barriers existed in the classroom that prevented them from expressing their opinions. This article characterizes those responses and presents the first study to draw conclusions about the gendered educational experience in political science by integrating these qualitative and quantitative results.

Research suggests that technology in the political science classroom may enhance student experiences and help instructors achieve their student-learning outcomes. Yet, how technology may foster more empathy for opposing viewpoints—an essential characteristic of deliberative democracy—has received less attention. This article outlines an assignment that required students to use WordPress to construct a campaign website for an opposition candidate and write a paper justifying their content and design choices. After completing this assignment, students demonstrated increased knowledge of the candidates for whom they designed websites. Additionally, they displayed a greater level of confidence in the competence of those candidates and a greater understanding of why the candidates would appeal to certain voters. Students also expressed a belief that the assignment provided a tangible professional skill that they would use in the future, and they indicated that their belief in the demonstrated utility of the assignment made it more enjoyable and engaging. This assignment provides one example of how technology may be used in the political science classroom in a way that facilitates student engagement and democratic citizenship, while also helping the instructor to gauge students’ ability to apply course content to contemporary events.

This article describes the design and implementation of a redistricting simulation in two classes at a large university. Simulations often include a high degree of abstraction and, as a result, may not inform and develop an understanding of how the world operates. We developed a binding-arbitration game, based on the New Jersey model of a bipartisan commission, in which groups of students used US Census data and a set of mandatory and discretionary criteria to design congressional districts in Louisiana as well as advocate for their plan at an open hearing. In so doing, they learned about the complexities of redistricting and were introduced to geographical information systems (GIS). The student-drawn maps, on average, were more compact and preserved a larger proportion of places and parishes in a single district than the legislature-drawn map. The article discusses other features of the students’ maps and concludes with comments on the general decision-game design.