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.

The use of field experiments in political science has become extensive, but the promise of conducting a randomized intervention in a “real world” setting also raises perils for researchers. Partnering with organizations to deliver a randomized intervention may be a cost effective route to data collection, but a long-distance partnership presents certain challenges. In particular, the researcher needs to be especially vigilant about treatment application given the potential for noncompliance with the random assignment schedule. I provide an evaluation of a field intervention’s effectiveness where the long-distance partner organization inadvertently violated the random assignment of voter precincts in a canvassing effort prior to a citizen vote to repeal a non-discrimination housing ordinance protecting LGBT residents of a Midwestern city. I then provide recommendations for researchers to help mitigate treatment noncompliance when they cannot be present during treatment delivery.

As a pillar of Data Access and Research Transparency (DA-RT), analytic transparency calls for radical honesty about how political scientists infer conclusions from their data. However, honesty about one’s research practices often means discarding the linguistic template of deductive proceduralism that structures most writing, which in turn diminishes the prospects for successful publication. This dissonance reflects a unique dilemma: transparency initiatives reflect a vision of research drawn from the biomedical and natural sciences, and struggle with the messier, iterative, and open-ended nature of political science scholarship. Analytic transparency requires not only better individual practices, such as active citations, but also institutional strategies that reward radical honesty. Journals can provide authors with protected space to reveal research practices, further blind the review process, and experiment with special issues. More broadly, analytic openness can be mandated through procedural monitoring, such as real-time recording of research activities and keystroke logging for statistical programs.

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.

With the discipline’s push toward data access and research transparency (DA-RT), journal replication archives are becoming increasingly common. As researchers work to ensure that replication materials are provided, they also should pay attention to the content—rather than simply the provision—of journal archives. Based on our experience in analyzing and handling journal replication materials, we present a series of recommendations that can make them easier to understand and use. The provision of clear, functional, and well-documented replication materials is key for achieving the goals of transparent and replicable research. Furthermore, good replication materials enhance the development of extensions and related research by making state-of-the-art methodologies and analyses more accessible.

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.

Assigning students to draft and publish a Wikipedia contribution is no longer a novelty. The pedagogical benefits from assigning a Wikipedia article vary depending on discipline, lesson plan, and how it is incorporated into the class. This research considers how a Wikipedia assignment can effectively overcome common challenges in teaching controversial topics including peer relations, teacher–student power dynamics, and (mis)perceptions of “the other.”

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.

Teaching about political conflict requires an understanding of the multiple perspectives and motivations of the parties to the conflict. This is especially true when teaching students who may have strong predispositions, such as in classes on the Arab–Israeli conflict. Various active-learning techniques address this problem but often at a cost of long preparation, substantial class time, and class-size limitations. This article offers both quantitative and qualitative evidence that a short essay asking students to defend a key action taken by one of the actors makes them more understanding and less accusatory of that side—even as it does not change their overall attitude toward the conflict. Adding a small-group discussion and a written reflection further helps students to make more informed and reasoned judgments. Importantly, such an assignment is easy to create, implement, and modify across various class types, sizes, and constraints.