Dissertation Awards

Gabriel A. Almond Award for the best dissertation in the field of comparative politics

Recipient: Anna Zhang, Stanford University

Title: “Go West, Young Han: Internal Migration as a Strategy of Counterinsurgency”

Award Committee: Chair: Professor Jae-Jae Spoon, University of Pittsburgh; Dr. Aurel S. Croissant, University Heidelberg; Milli Lake, London School of Economics

Award Citation: “Go West, Young Han: Internal Migration as a Strategy of Counterinsurgency” by Anna Zhang is motivated by the question of how states can reduce counterinsurgency. It develops a theory that states can do this by delegating authority to a multi-dimensional agent and tests it in the context of China’s peripheral regions, and specifically the Muslim insurgency in Xinjiang since 1949, by looking at the multi-functional agent devised by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)—the bingtuan—an agency with the dual function of an armed force and self-sufficient food production through land reclamation. The dissertation exploits cross-regional variation in the size and strength of the bingtuan to explore their effect.

In addition to careful theorizing, consideration of alternative explanations and generalizability beyond the case studied, the dissertation stands out because of its impressive original data collection and analysis efforts. The dissertation relies on a near-complete collection of 550 historical gazetteers published by the bigtuan, which record local history and highlight accomplishments of the state, as well as information collected through interviews and memoirs during 12-months of ethnographic fieldwork, and also draws on a range of secondary sources.

In sum, this dissertation exemplifies the highest quality of dissertations and is most deserving of the Gabriel A. Almond Award for Best Dissertation in Comparative Politics. The theory is carefully developed and reflects a deep understanding of the extant literature, the methods used are varied, innovative, and sophisticated, and the knowledge of the case at hand is unrivaled. In addition, the findings have important implications for understanding how states can manage insurgency through delegation to a single multifunctional agency.

William Anderson Award for the best dissertation in the general field of federalism or intergovernmental relations, state, and local politics

Recipient: Javier Pérez Sandoval, University of Oxford

Title: “The Origins of Subnational Democracy: How Colonial Legacies and Labor Incorporation Shaped Regime Heterogeneity within Latin American Countries”

Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Allyson L. Benton, University of Essex; Gwen Arnold, University of California, Davis; Dr. Philip B. Rocco, Marquette University

Award Citation: The award committee selected Javier Perez Sandoval’s PhD dissertation entitled “The Origins of Subnational Democracy: How Colonial Legacies and Labor Incorporation Shaped Regime Heterogeneity within Latin American Countries” for the 2021 William Anderson Award for best doctoral dissertation in the general field of federalism or intergovernmental relations, state, and local politics.

Research on subnational politics often highlights variation in the level of subnational democracy, with some scholars noting the presence of subnational authoritarian regimes within nationally democratic systems. Most research to date explaining such regime juxtaposition highlights a variety of contemporary (proximal) political and economic factors that contribute to it. In a novel contribution to current research, Javier focuses on the role of prior (distal) factors in explaining variation in subnational democracy. Specifically, he argues that variation in the nature of economic development under colonial rule–that is, in whether colonial empires relied on liberal or mercantilist relationships with their colonies–determined the timing and strength of organized labor, thereby shaping the role local political leaders and their relationship with national authorities. Those local leaders mediating labor-elite conflict during colonial rule were more likely to develop the capacity to support local democratic systems, especially compared to those local leaders that never developed such roles and who were thus usurped by colonial powers and national governments later on. Javier tests his argument using a range of qualitative and quantitative evidence and methods. Notably, he also carefully considers an exhaustive list of potential alternative mechanisms and provides empirical evidence to dismiss them. It is this effort that goes a long way to providing crucial support for his argument.

In making this argument, Javier shows how antecedent, colonial-era economic conditions fundamentally shape the evolution of subnational political arenas, leaving a legacy for subnational democracy that affects it even today. Impressive in its theoretical reach and empirical support, this research will force scholars of subnational politics to redefine the role of contemporary economic and political factors in explaining variation of subnational democracy and autocracy within nations.

Edward S. Corwin Award for the best dissertation in the field of public law

Recipient: Nikhil Kalyanpur, Georgetown University

Title: “Liberalism Outsourced: Why Oligarchs and Autocrats Fight in Foreign Courts”

Award Committee: Chair: R. Daniel Kelemen, Rutgers University, New Brunswick; Dr. Rachel A. Cichowski, University of Washington; Dr. Shannon Ishiyama Smithey, Westminster College

Award Citation: Nikhil Kalyanpur’s “Liberalism Outsourced: Why Oligarchs and Autocrats Fight in Foreign Courts” is this year’s Edward S. Corwin Award winner. Kalyanpur dissertation stood out among a large number of excellent nominees in the field of public law. Kalyanpur explores a puzzling aspect of economic interdependence and global governance—the use of courts in liberal jurisdictions to settle disputes between plutocrats and autocrats from emerging market economies. He asks when and why plutocrats and autocrats use extraterritorial litigation before courts in liberal jurisdictions to settle their domestic disputes. He argues that the balance of power between the state and the plutocratic class determines when they turn to litigation in liberal jurisdictions. Specifically, the turn to extraterritorial litigation is more likely to occur when the state and plutocrats have similar power resources. In such circumstances, if the losing side in a domestic political battle absconds abroad, the winning side may pursue their wealth abroad by bringing litigation before courts in liberal jurisdictions. This helps explain why we see, for instance, so many Russian state-owned enterprises and deposed oligarchs suing one another in courts in London.

Kalyanpur’s dissertation truly pioneers new terrain—pushing the discipline to explore the international and comparative political economy of oligarchy. His work pushes us to consider how the transnational legal market blurs the boundaries between domestic and international disputes- allowing authoritarians to pursue expatriate oligarchs and allowing those oligarchs to organize their business affairs such that they can benefit from the rule of law protections that liberal jurisdictions provide. These elite practices may have important implications for the stability of autocratic regimes and the potential for institutional reform. Kalyanpur’s dissertation is not only theoretically rich, it is also deeply researched and beautifully written. His engaging prose and detailed accounts of the stories behind extraterritorial litigation involving Russian oligarchs in the 1990s and 2000s gives us access to a secretive world. Kalyanpur has made a great contribution to the field and his work deserves to be widely read.

Harold D. Lasswell Award for the best dissertation in the field of public policy

Recipient: Margaret Brower, University of Chicago

Title: “How She Reconfigures the State: Intersectional Advocacy & The movement to End Violence”

Award Committee: Chair: Dr. David Konisky, Indiana University Bloomington; Dr. Michael K. Gusmano, Lehigh University; Dr. Sarah E. Reckhow, Michigan State University

Award Citation: The selection committee is delighted to announce that the winner of the 2022 Harold D. Lasswell Award for the best dissertation in the field of public policy is Margaret Brower. Dr. Brower completed her dissertation, “How She Reconfigures the State: Intersectional Advocacy & The Movement Against Violence” in 2021 at the University of Chicago.

The field for the Lasswell Award this year was incredibly deep, but Dr. Brower’s dissertation stood out for its originality and creativity, theoretical innovation, mixed methods research design, and exceptional writing and argumentation.

“How She Reconfigures the State” is a study of movements to end violence against women, and more specifically the pursuit of what Dr. Brower terms “intersectional advocacy” which is a strategic process to transcend institutional boundaries to serve groups that are positioned between multiple issues. Dr. Brower argues that intersectional advocacy organizations operate very differently than other organizations by contesting the boundaries of existing policy institutions, thereby more effectively representing multi-marginalized groups. Stated differently, intersectional advocacy organizations work to protect women against violence by connecting it with seemingly separate issues such as incarceration, housing and healthcare.

To examine her theoretical arguments, Dr. Brower employs a mixed methods approach, relying on dozens of interviews with organizational leaders, detailed analysis of congressional hearings around the Violence Against Women Act, and survey experiments with the members of an advocacy organization. Collectively, “How She Reconfigures the State” provides an impressive amount of evidence demonstrating the role of intersectional advocacy in tracing the leadership and strategies of advocacy organizations, the trajectory of policy changes through legislative reauthorization, and the potential mobilization of constituents.

Dr. Brower’s dissertation makes important contributions to the field of public policy, as well as to multiple other fields within political science including social movements, political advocacy, representation, and women and politics. “How She Reconfigures the State” is a terrific dissertation that we anticipate will make a lasting contribution to political science and the study of public policy.

E.E. Schattschneider Award for the best dissertation in the field of American government

Co-recipient: Matthew Graham, Yale University

Title: “Misperceiving Misperceptions: How Surveys Distort the Nature of Partisan Belief Differences”

Co-recipient: Matthew Nelsen, Northwestern University

Title: “Educating for Empowerment: Race, Socialization, and Reimagining Civic Education”

Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Susan M. Sterett, University of Maryland, Baltimore County; Dr. Lori Cox Han, Chapman University; Dr. Jon C. Rogowski, University of Chicago

Award Citations: Each makes a different but equally important contribution to political science and public discussion. Dr. Nelsen’s “Educating for Empowerment: Race, Socialization, and Reimagining Civic Education” is a path-breaking contribution to scholarship that links civic education and democratic citizenship. In “Misperceiving Misperceptions: How Surveys Distort the Nature of Partisan Belief Differences,” Dr. Graham carefully analyzes contemporary survey practices and their implications for the conclusions drawn from survey-based research. Both dissertations address questions that are central to American political science, display methodological creativity and sophistication, and contribute (in different ways) to how we understand contemporary political challenges. Upon first reading, Dr. Graham’s work could speak more to the discipline and Dr. Nelsen’s more to a broader public. However, in speaking to the discipline, Misperceiving Misperceptions: How Surveys Distort the Nature of Partisan Belief Differences also argues about issues at the leading edge of interpreting public opinion in the United States, a matter of concern for political candidates, pollsters, and the general public. Dr. Graham argues that survey methodology and common interpretation of responses leads to overstating the extent of partisan division. Given widespread concerns about what partisan division as demonstrated in survey responses means for democracy in the United States, Misperceiving Misperceptions also speaks to interpreting whether there are common frames for knowledge in the United States. Revising how we interpret surveys could contribute to revising public reporting about opinion.

In “Educating for Empowerment: Race, Socialization, and Reimagining Civic Education,” Dr. Nelsen studies democratic participation and political socialization in the United States. The dissertation evaluates how civic education affects students’ political attitudes and behaviors. It focuses particularly on how pedagogical practices and classroom texts widen high school students’ understanding of what counts as political activity and their interest in participating in politics. Dr. Nelsen’s empirical site is public schools in Chicago. He conducted an innovative experiment in multiple classrooms, which asked students to read and respond to a commonly-used textbook or an alternative text describing similar events but with a focus on a wider variety of actors and social movements. Dr. Nelsen finds that many students of color exposed to the treatment report greater likelihood of political participation. Beyond the experiment, Dr. Nelsen also analyzed survey data and conducted focus groups and interviews with the students and teachers in the experiment. Through these multiple methods, Dr. Nelsen provides a rich set of findings for understanding the connections between civic education and political participation among young people.

Dr. Graham’s “Misperceiving Misperceptions” addresses issues at the leading edge of interpreting public opinion in the United States by critiquing common survey practices. The dissertation argues that interpretations of survey research rely on contested understandings of what it means to have a belief, which attribute a level of certainty to survey responses that respondents may not have. Dr. Graham introduces a theoretical model of survey responding that accounts for respondents’ varying levels of confidence in the response options on offer. Through original survey experiments and re-analysis of previous survey data, Dr. Graham’s dissertation shows that survey respondents are often more aware of limits to their knowledge than analysts often conclude. Dr. Graham further shows that some contemporary conclusions about partisan divisions in political (mis)perceptions are due to measurement practices rather than partisans’ tendencies to believe falsehoods. On the basis of the findings in the dissertation, Dr. Graham recommends a set of best practices that would improve the quality of survey research and the interpretation of data collected through surveys.

We commend Dr. Graham and Dr. Nelsen for the exceedingly high quality of their dissertation research. We believe both dissertations will have far-reaching impact both within and beyond the discipline of political science. Further, the two dissertations exemplify the capacity of political science research to contribute to knowledge and to inform debates in the public sphere.

Kenneth Sherrill Prize for the best dissertation proposal for an empirical study of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) topics in political science

Recipient: Kellen A. Kane, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Title: “Health, Wealth, and Representation: Three Essays on LGBTQ+ Politics and Policy”

Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Gary Mucciaroni, Temple University; Dr. Logan S. Casey, Harvard University; Dr. Gregory B. Lewis, Georgia State University

Award Citation: The selection committee has chosen Kellen A. Kane of the University of North Carolina as the 2022 recipient of the Kenneth Sherrill Prize for the best doctoral dissertation proposal for an empirical study of LGBTQ topics in Political Science. Organized into three papers, Kane focuses on several aspects of LGBTQ inequality in terms of public policy design, implementation and outcomes as well as in descriptive representation. The dissertation promises to make original contributions to knowledge in these areas by posing questions that have been unanswered and by adopting a mixed method approach in which he collects and combines a variety of data sources and develops new measures and analytical strategies. The first paper examines how the social construction of LGBTQ individuals shapes how state-level bureaucracies implement the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program—specifically how benefits and burdens are distributed unequally among different target populations. Kane’s second paper, which turns to disparities in poverty and income, explores how and why LGBTQ individuals are at a disadvantage in their ability to participate in a key anti-poverty program—the Earned Income Tax Credit—and the adverse impact that this has on their health. His third paper turns to why openly LGBTQ candidates are increasingly likely to be elected to some state legislative districts than others and develops a measure predicting that outcome.

Leo Strauss Award for the best dissertation in the field of political philosophy

Co-Recipient: Shuk Ying Chan, Princeton University

Title: “Postcolonial Global Justice”

Co-Recipient: Siddhant Issar, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Title: “Thinking with Black Lives Matter: Towards a Critical Theory of Racial Capitalism”

Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Lida E. Maxwell, Boston University; Ivan Andre Ascher, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; Dr. Jane A. Gordon, University of Connecticut, Storrs

Award Citations: Siddhant Isser’s “Thinking with Black Lives Matter: Towards a Critical Theory of Racial Capitalism” is a superb argument for moving beyond analyses of contemporary oppression that think through only one critical lens (i.e., “anti-racist” or “anti-capitalist” or “anti-colonial”). Taking his starting point from the Black Lives Matter movement, which relies on an expansive understanding of racial capitalism (as necessarily entwined with settler colonialism), Isser shows the importance of a robust theory of racial capitalism for political theory by way of engagement with a wide range of thinkers (e.g. Marx, Cedric Robinson, David Harvey, Wendy Brown, Jodi Melamed). Isser’s dissertation shines especially in its incisive critique of major thinkers of neoliberalism for their failures to sufficiently analyze the importance of race, and its brilliant analysis of “racial/colonial primitive accumulation.” Isser’s dissertation is most important, though, because it gives political theorists something they really need: a theory of racial capitalism that they can use and put to work in analyzing contemporary oppression.

In “Postcolonial Global Justice,” Shuk Ying Chan argues that we can only understand the nature of global justice if we examine it from the perspective of anti-colonial thought. In a wide-ranging analysis of a number of anti-colonial thinkers (Nehru, Nkrumah, Cabral, Fanon, Césaire), Chan argues that their thought offers an important critique of global hierarchies beyond formal colonial arrangements. Chan’s dissertation is impressive on a number of levels: she moves effortlessly between ideal theory and historically grounded analysis of post-colonial thinkers; she shows an incredibly deep and broad understanding of a plethora of western and non-western thinkers; and perhaps most importantly, Chan uses her immense knowledge to offer clear and cogent recommendations for pragmatically addressing injustice in existing global cultural, economic, and political arrangements. Postcolonial Global Justice offers a dazzling, clear, deeply useful, and truly global theoretical framework for analyzing global justice.

Merze Tate Award for the best dissertation in the field of international relations, law, and politics

Recipient: Rachel Myrick, Stanford University

Title: Partisan Polarization and International Politics

Award Committee: Chair: Erik Gartzke, UCSD; Dr. Hyeran Jo, Texas A&M University; Professor Jo-Ansie van Wyk, University of South Africa

Award Citation: The dissertation presents a new finding that partisan polarization undermines reliability and credibility of democratic countries in conducting foreign policies. It uses extensive and comprehensive multi-methods to test the arguments, including text analysis, survey experiments, elite interviews, and case studies. The dissertation has policy relevance in the era of polarization. We also learn how partisan polarization might affect the United States’ ability to interact with other countries on the international stage. The polarization’s impact on the world stage, cross-pollination with American politics, acute policy relevance, and multi-methods investigation—all make this dissertation one of the best for this year’s APSA’s Merze Tate Award.

Leonard D. White Award for the best dissertation in the field of public administration

Recipient: Sarah James, Harvard University

Title: “When is Hindsight 20/20? The Politics of Acknowledging and Revising Failed Policies”

Award Committee: Chair: Maria Christina Binz-Scharf, The City College of New York; Scott Lamothe, University of Oklahoma; Dr. Sanghee Park, Boise State University

Award Citation: The 2022 Leonard D. White Dissertation Committee is happy to select Sarah James’s “When is Hindsight 20/20? The Politics of Acknowledging and Revising Failed Policies” as the 2022 award winner.

Sarah’s research addresses an interesting and understudied question: Under what conditions is information likely to impact policy discussions and outcomes? She begins by relating how states deal with policy failure based on both their data collection and analytical capacities, and develops interesting comparisons in the following chapters. By looking at where the evidence is coming from, and whose analyses are available/utilized, Sarah’s research helps illuminate biases in the process that could be addressed by focusing attention on government structure and resource allocation, and conceives of policy failure as an opportunity for learning. We feel that it offers important implications for public administration and public policy, identifying possible ways for decision-makers (e.g., legislators) to overcome their tendency to focus attention on empirical findings that support their preexisting preferences.

The dissertation was enjoyable to read and clearly written, based on a well-thought-out research design. By choosing states with different ideological dispositions and levels of governmental professionalization, Sarah accounts for known constraints in the process (e.g., professional legislatures are generally more able to utilize research findings and the actors generating/analyzing the data can impact the acceptance of results). We are also impressed with the breadth of her data collection, which included reviewing newspaper and legislative archives (including audio tapes of committee meetings), as well as interviews.

A number of her findings were intriguing. First, data collection by government is imperative. It especially helps if the data are collected for general purposes, which signals impartiality in the process. Second, outside entities can supplement a lack of internal analytical capacity, especially if the state gathers a wealth of data, as was the case with one of her examples from Texas. And third, the results also offer insights into how data-driven learning may assist policymakers and advocates in making policy choices that can address and mitigate racial and class inequality.

Overall, we commend Dr. Sarah James for her research efforts and congratulate her on winning the American Political Science Association’s 2022 Leonard D. White Award, honoring the best doctoral dissertation in the field of public administration.

Paper, Article, & Poster Awards

APSA Best Poster Award for the best poster presented by a graduate student and/or early career scholar at the APSA Annual Meeting

Recipients: Elisha Cohen

Title: “Measuring Gender Bias in United States House Elections: An Outcome Test Approach.”

Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Lindsay B. Flynn, University of Luxembourg; Laura Roost, Newberry College; Dr. Jake Haselswerdt, University of Missouri, Columbia; Dr. Nathan K. Mitchell, Prairie View A&M University; Dr. Renu Singh, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

Award Citation: Elisha Cohen’s poster titled “Measuring Gender Bias in US House Elections: An Outcome Test Approach” exemplifies the highest standards for research presented at APSA’s Annual Meeting in any format. Cohen applies a new methodological approach to measuring gender bias in US House elections that accounts for the way that bias at one stage in a process obscures bias in subsequent stages, and quantifies the percentage of successful men at each stage (emergence, nomination, and general election) who would have failed had they been women. The study makes a groundbreaking contribution to the study of candidate gender in the United States and elsewhere. Cohen’s presentation of this research in the iPoster format is also top-notch, with attractive and informative figures and judicious use of text.

Franklin L. Burdette/Pi Sigma Alpha Award for the best paper presented at the previous year’s APSA Annual Meeting

Recipient: Jessie Bullock, Harvard University

Title: “Machine Gun Politics: Why Politicians Cooperate with Criminal Groups”

Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Mario Guerrero, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona; Dr. Alexander George Theodoridis, University of Massachusetts Amherst; Dr. Aubrey Westfall, Wheaton College

Award Citation: The committee is pleased to award the 2022 Franklin R. Burdette/Pi Sigma Alpha Award to Jessie Bullock, for the paper titled “Machine Gun Politics: Why Politicians Cooperate with Criminal Groups”. This paper stands out as the best paper presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association in Seattle, Washington. Bullock’s paper is a fantastic contribution to the study of state-criminal interactions in Latin America, estimating the magnitude of criminal influence on voting beyond descriptive research.

Bullock’s primary contribution is greater depth in our understanding of criminal dominance in electoral politics and its implications for inequality and violence. Bullock’s analysis provides evidence for how criminal governance affects electoral competition: by providing voters and restricting access to candidacy. These findings have significant implications for electoral access and criminal governance.

This study is multi-method, first drawing on an original database of criminal governance in Rio de Janiero, Brazil, which shows which criminal groups governed favelas from 2015-2020, and comparing that to voter data, demonstrating that voting differs when criminal groups are present. Specifically, criminally dominant favelas have higher voter turnout and low levels of electoral competition. In addition, Bullock supplements these findings with 18 months of field research with more than 50 candidates for local and state legislative office, their staffers, criminal group members, and residents of criminally dominated communities.

The paper is masterfully written, methodologically innovative, and excellently argued. The paper offers a high level of detail and takes its audience through the theory strategically. Overall, this study has wide implications in political science as it helps to better our understanding of elections and democracy in contexts where criminal groups govern.

Heinz I. Eulau Award for best article published in the American Political Science Review and Perspectives on Politics in the previous calendar year

Recipients (APSR): Pavithra Suryanarayan and Steven White

Title: “Slavery, Reconstruction, and Bureaucratic Capacity in the American South”

Recipients (PoP): Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni and J.C. Sharman

Title: “Enforcers beyond Borders: Transnational NGOs and the Enforcement of International Law”

Award Committees: Chair: Dr. Erik Martinez Kuhonta, McGill University; Dr. Kristin Marie Bakke, University College London; Dr. Carles Boix, Princeton University; Dr. Benjamin I. Page, Northwestern University; Anastasia Shesterinina, The University of Sheffield

Award Citations: (APSR) “Slavery, Reconstruction, and Bureaucratic Capacity in the American South” is a very original paper challenging a mainstream position in political economy that argues that taxation will increase following a growth in the franchise. To the contrary, focusing on the American South, Pavithra Suryanarayan and Steven White show that bureaucratic fiscal capacity actually declined in the aftermath of voting rights expansion during Reconstruction. The authors argue persuasively that in ranked societies, ethnic groups may seek to undermine the state in order to maintain their social advantages. In the American South, white people formed cross-coalitions that weakened institutions so as to repress the rights of African-Americans. In states where slavery was more prevalent, these white cross-coalitions were linked with weaker institutional development.

This paper is especially notable for its judicious combination of historical research and quantitative analysis that combine to build a distinct theoretical argument. The authors creatively use county level census data and taxation from 11 Confederate states in the mid to late 19th century to operationalize bureaucratic quality and fiscal capacity. In doing so, the paper is not only empirically deep, but also conceptually innovative. Finally, this paper demonstrates very clearly the value of case study research that, while rooted in the history of one country, has wide implications for other cases where the interaction of ethnicity, class, and institutions can have powerful effects on political development.

(POP) “Enforcers Beyond Borders” is an excellent study of the rise, significance, and implications of NGO enforcement of international law. Reconceptualizing first what constitutes “transnational enforcement,” Eilstrup-Sangiovanni and Sharman then argue that the failure of states to enforce international law, along with the emergence of new technologies and new legal remedies have provided the space for transnational actors’ forceful action. In-depth case studies of environmental protection and anti-corruption show effectively how NGO enforcement has gained greater salience in the past decades.

The power of this article lies in its distinct ability to address a question of very clear policy importance while engaging in first-rate social science skills: conceptual analysis, theory building, and case study development. The implications of greater NGO enforcement in the international arena raise further questions about the procedural legitimacy of transnational actors’ behavior, as well as the extent to which NGOs should be taking over the enforcement responsibilities of states. In pushing these challenging questions, Eilstrup-Sangiovanni and Sharman have successfully opened up important avenues for research for scholars in fields as diverse as international law and comparative politics.

Book Awards

APSA Best Book Award for the best book on government, politics, or international affairs

Co-Recipient: Diana C. Mutz, University of Pennsylvania

Title: Winners and Losers: The Psychology of Foreign Trade

Co-Recipient: Cigdem V. Sirin (The University of Texas at El Paso), Nicholas A. Valentino (The University of Michigan), and Jose D. Villalobos (The University of Texas at El Paso);

Title: Seeing Us in Them: Social Divisions and the Politics of Group Empathy

Award Committee: Chair: Kimberly J. Morgan, George Washington University; Professor Eva Anduiza, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona; Dr. Karam Dana, University of Washington; Dr. Hans J.G. Hassell, Florida State University; Dr. Nils Ringe, University of Wisconsin, Madison

Diana Mutz. Winners and Losers: The Psychology of Foreign Trade (Princeton University Press 2021).

Award Citations: In Winners and Losers: The Psychology of Foreign Trade, Diana Mutz tackles a question that has great importance for contemporary political debates–what explains public attitudes towards international trade? Against the prevailing scholarly wisdom, Mutz argues that these attitudes are not purely the result of economic self-interest; rather, psychological forces, such as the perception of status loss among the national ingroup, are key to understanding whether people see trade as a competitive struggle for dominance or as a set of transactions that can bring mutual benefits to all. Mutz uses a wealth of observational and experimental evidence from the United States to test her original theory, and she extends her research to Canada to demonstrate the theory’s application beyond the U.S. context. Her work thus speaks to scholarship in comparative politics, American politics, and international relations. The book’s findings should influence research on the economic reasoning of the mass public well beyond trade and shed light on one of the most important developments of recent years—the rise of populist politics.

Cigdem V. Sirin, Nicholas A. Valentino, and José D. Villalobos, Seeing Us in Them: Social Divisions and the Politics of Group Empathy (Cambridge University Press 2021). In Seeing Us in Them: Social Divisions and the Politics of Group Empathy, Sirin, Valentino, and Villalobos investigate an essential topic – attitudes toward people who are outside of one’s immediate identity group. The authors develop an original theory about the sources and consequences of outgroup empathy, which holds that people who have experienced discrimination and other forms of unfair treatment will be more likely to care about the well-being of people in other marginalized groups. Using an array of empirical tests, the authors show that group empathy is a key predictor of attitudes towards migrants and refugees, support for Black Lives Matter, perceptions of the #MeToo movement, and more. Sirin et al.’s theory of empathy, and new measures of it, have potentially wide applications in offering tools for analyzing identity divides in many parts of the world. Moreover, at a time in US politics when polarization is driving people further apart, Seeing Us in Them draws attention to a fundamental human quality–empathy–that could help knit us back together.

Ralph J. Bunche Award for the best scholarly work in political science that explores the phenomenon of ethnic and cultural pluralism

Co-Recipient: Nadia E. Brown (Purdue University) and Danielle Casarez Lemi (Southern Methodist University);

Title: Sister Style: The Politics of Appearance for Black Women Elites

Co-Recipient: Mark Fathi Massoud; University of California, Santa Cruz

Title: Shari’a, Inshallah: Finding God in Somali Legal Politics

Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Annika M. Hinze, Fordham University; Dr. Natasha Altema McNeely, University of Texas, Rio Grande Valley; Thomas K. Ogorzalek, Co-Lab Research

Award Citations: In Sister Style, Brown and Casarez Lemi center the experiences of Black women. This alone fills a huge gap in the current literature on women in politics: Black women are severely understudied in the discipline. What is more, Sister Style examines the Black female experience in politics, the politicization of Black women’s bodies center stage: It is not a comparative book, where Black women fill a specific comparative category. Instead, the book centers solely on their specific experience, and their reception by Black voters—a long overdue endeavor in the field of American politics. Black women currently represent the strongest and most reliable voter demographic of the Democratic Party, putting them at the center of the partisan battle in American politics. Yet, they are simultaneously severely underrepresented in the study of American politics—in the profession, as well as in the literature. The awards committee finds Sister Style to be a crucial and long overdue addition to the literature on American politics and American pluralism, and we feel strongly about highlighting the key contribution of this important book.

Shari’a, Inshallah makes a key contribution in a context that seems worlds away from US woes about elections and representation: Massoud examines the contested definition of Shari’a law in Somalia, between colonialism, post-colonialism, and on the ground. Given the western prejudices and predominant definitions of the term Shari’a, the title of this book in and of itself is brave and bold. But Shari’a, Inshallah goes much further, highlighting the inextricable connection between Shari’a and the law itself: In the context of Somalia, Massoud shows that Shari’a traditions do not represent a radical departure from the law, but that they in fact are embedded in it, as civic traditions. In doing so, Massoud shows the (western) reader that Shari’a does not always stand for radical Islam, that religions are not monoliths, and that their traditions are deeply and beneficially embedded in states’ legal frameworks. The awards committee determined that this book makes an important contribution to understanding civic and legal traditions outside the west. As it is, American and western-centric studies are still over-represented in the field, and Massoud makes an invaluable, brave, and insightful contribution that absolutely deserves special recognition.

Robert A. Dahl Award for an untenured scholar who has produced scholarship of the highest quality on democracy

Recipient: Elizabeth Nugent, Yale University

Title: After Repression: How Polarization Derails Democratic Transition

Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Steve Fish, University of California, Berkeley; Dr. Nikolay V. Marinov, University of Houston

Award Citation: The 2022 Robert A Dahl Award goes to Elizabeth Nugent for After Repression: How Polarization Derails Democratic Transition. After Repression is an outstanding work of comparative politics that that addresses question of great intellectual in practical importance: Why did the Arab Spring revolution hold in Tunisia but fail in Egypt? Nugent demonstrates that blanket repression of opposition groups in Tunisia and the more targeted repression carried out in Egypt set the stage for opposition cooperation in the former and opposition polarization in the latter. Blanket repression encouraged bridging political identities, while targeted repression intensified in-group identities and exacerbated polarization. Cooperation among oppositionists, in turn, set the stage for a more robust democratization in Tunisia, while opposition polarization undermined Egypt’s democratic experiment. The author’s explanation includes a brilliantly formulated account of the affective dimensions of polarization and cooperation, showing how authoritarian regimes’ survival strategies shape the sociological context in which subsequent efforts to democratize take place. Empirical investigation is based on political life histories of over one hundred former opposition activists, which the author wrote based on semi-structured interviews she conducted between 2012 and 2018. Analyses include a lab experiment that tests the psychological mechanism underlying the causal argument. After Repression brings the Middle East into the study of democratization and furnishes insights that promise to inform our thinking about democratic experiments around the world.

Gladys M. Kammerer Award for the best book published during the previous calendar year in the field of United States national policy

Recipients: Christopher Witko (Pennsylvania State University), Jana Morgan (University of Tennessee), Nathan J. Kelly (University of Tennessee), and Peter K. Enns (Cornell University);

Title: Hijacking the Agenda: Economic Power and Political Influence

Award Committee: Chair: Brad T. Gomez, Florida State University; Dr. Lisa M. Holmes, University of Vermont; Dr. Erin E. O’Brien, University of Massachusetts, Boston

Award Citation: In Hijacking the Agenda: Economic Power and Political Influence, authors Christopher Witko, Jana Morgan, Nathan J. Kelly, and Peter K. Enns reorient our conception and measurement of the policy agenda and expand our theoretical understanding of who influences it. Building on the assumption that issue attention precipitates policy action—although it clearly does not guarantee action—the authors examine all the nearly half billion words spoken on the floors of the houses of Congress from 1995 to 2016 to develop a systematic measure of economic issue attention. The measure not only provides an understanding of which economic issues are prioritized but gives us an unprecedented view of who shapes the agenda and why. The authors demonstrate convincingly that members of Congress give more attention to economic issues prioritized by wealthy interests, compared to those prioritized by lower- and middle-class interests, and that greater attention in the form of speeches made on the floor of Congress results in more action on those issues.

Witko et al. provide three case studies (of financial deregulation, partial financial re-regulation, and the minimum wage) to demonstrate how the dynamic relationship between structural and kinetic power determines whose interests are likely to prevail in Congress. When those with greater structural power throw their kinetic resources behind an economic agenda, such as efforts made by the wealthy interests connected to the financial sector to use their resources to push for financial deregulation in the 1990s, their agenda is likely to be achieved in Congress. However, the 2007 financial crisis temporarily undermined the structural power of those wealthy interests, providing an opportunity for lower- and middle-class interests to push for modest reforms intended to improve regulation of the finance industry. With respect to minimum wage policy, intended to benefit those with less structural power generally, Witko et al. demonstrate that wealthier interests were able to use their asymmetrical advantage in structural and kinetic power to keep an increase in the minimum wage off the legislative agenda, at times by directing resources to members of Congress likely to support an increase in the minimum wage.

Hijacking the Agenda is an important, if sobering, account of how issues arise on the US national policy agenda. Witko and colleagues remind us that “the ability to control which issues get onto the agenda and which remain off the agenda is an important aspect of wielding political power.” With less structural power, middle- and lower-class interests must mobilize their kinetic resources through activities like campaign donations and member mobilization in the hopes of making even modest reforms before the traditionally more powerful interests regain their full structural advantage and the window for putting reform on the legislative agenda once again closes.

Benjamin E. Lippincott Award for exceptional work by a living political theorist that is still considered significant after a time span of at least 15 years since the original publication

Recipient: Jane Mansbridge, Harvard University

Title: Beyond Adversary Democracy

Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Cecile Fabre, University of Edinburgh; Dr. Lisa J. Disch, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; Will Kymlicka, Queens University

Award Citation: Jane Mansbridge’s Beyond Adversary Democracy is an outstanding work in normative political theory and the study of democratic institutions. It introduces a distinction (which is now seminal in democratic theory) between adversary democracy (which seeks to solve conflicts between citizens’ essentially self-interested preferences via majority rule grounded in equal voting rights), and unitary democracy (which is based on common interest and equal respect and seeks and relies on consensus.) In so doing, the book reframes familiar distinctions between pluralism and direct or participatory democracy, in the service of a rich and nuanced understanding of democratic ideals. It is a particular strength of the book that Mansbridge favors neither of these methods in the abstract. She argues that successful democratic decision-making requires citizens to engage in both, and to be able to shift from one to the other as the context demands.

The book is a methodological tour de force. It blends normative arguments with interviews, questionnaires, and in-the-field observations of town meetings. It has been broadly influential not just in political theory but in political science in general. It is of considerable relevance today with democracies under populist threat. Beyond Adversary Democracy offers an acute diagnosis of the legitimacy gaps created by the adversary system, and its tendencies to polarization or authoritarianism, but also offers a hopeful vision of how to fill these gaps by emphasizing common interests and political friendship.

APSA-IPSA Theodore J. Lowi First Book Award for the best first book in any field of political science, showing promise of having substantive impact on the overall discipline

Recipient: Christian Dyogi Phillips, University of Southern California

Title: Nowhere to Run: Race, Gender, and Immigration in American Elections

Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Hasret Dikici Bilgin, Istanbul Bilgi University; Dr. Irasema Coronado, Arizona State University; Dr. Mary Alice Haddad, Wesleyan University; Professor Michael Saward, University of Warwick; Dr. Zeynep Somer-Topcu, The University of Texas at Austin

Christian Dyogi Phillips is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Southern California (USC) and is affiliated with the USC Institute for Intersectionality and Social Transformation and the USC Dornsife Equity Research Institute. Her research interests include political behavior, representation, and political incorporation, with an emphasis on the intersection of race, gender and immigrant communities in American politics.

The Award Committee unanimously selected Christian Dyogi Phillips’ book Nowhere to Run: Race, Gender and Immigration in American Elections for the Theodore J. Lowi First Book Award for 2022. Dyogi Phillips develops a new theory of intersectional politics and tests it using an original dataset (Gender Race and Communities in Elections Dataset) that includes nearly every US State Legislature’s general election from 1996-2005, interviews and surveys with candidates, donors and other politicians. Her study seeks to understand the persistent lack of descriptive representation in legislatures, which continue to be dominated by white men. She finds that the characteristics of districts, rather than choices or characteristics of candidates, are the main factors. Most US legislative districts are majority white, and most majority-minority districts tend to be won by men, so women of color are left with, literally, “nowhere to run.” Dyogi Phillips masterfully integrates different methods of research to analyze how race, gender, and identity combine with the racial and partisan composition of districts to shape power relations and affect electoral outcomes.

Victoria Schuck Award for the best book published on women and politics

Recipient: Laurel Elder, Hartwick College

Title: The Partisan Gap: Why Democratic Women Get Elected But Republican Women Don’t

Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Merike Blofield, German Institute of Global and Area Studies; Dr. Shauna L. Shames, Rutgers University, Camden; Dr. Michelle M. Taylor-Robinson, Texas A&M University

Award Citation: Elder’s book addresses an important puzzle: the development of a dramatic partisan gap in the legislative representation of women between the Democratic and Republican parties in the United States, at the national and sub-national level. Elder compellingly tests a variety of hypotheses, drawing on rich quantitative and qualitative data, making use of the US federal context. These findings underscore the short-sightedness of thinking of the US as a single unified political system. Her focus on the enormity of the range of state legislature’s inclusion of women and the reasons behind this outcome reveal some critical answers that looking at Congress alone would not. The book is exemplary for how it presents the research question, carries out the analysis, explains findings in a thoughtful and accessible way, and speaks to more than one subfield in political science.

The committee wishes to note the extremely high quality of the nominee pool. In particular, we want to draw the field’s attention to Mazie Hirono’s Heart of Fire: An Immigrant Daughter’s Story. This direct, beautifully written book tells the story of a poor immigrant girl, who learned what politics should and could do by watching her single mother struggle. Although not from a social science tradition, the memoir is awe-inspiring and immediately relevant not only for those who study women and gender, but everyone who studies politics.

Career Awards

APSA Community College Faculty Award for excellence in teaching, mentoring, community engagement, governance, and/or research by a community college faculty member in the profession

Recipient: Tyler G. Olson, Cuyahoga Community College

Award Committee: Chair: Wendy L. Johnston, SUNY, Adirondack Community College; Dr. Shawn L. Easley, Cuyahoga Community College; Dr. Tatyana Tuba Kelman Kisin, Tarrant County College-South Campus

Award Citation: The APSA Community College Award Committee has selected Tyler Olson to receive the 2022 APSA Community College Award. Tyler (Ty) Olson holds a master’s degree in Conflict Resolution and is a PhD candidate in Antioch University’s Leadership and Change program, with an anticipated graduation of June 2022. His doctoral work focuses on understanding how consciousness plays a role in leaders’ capacities to navigate conflict constructively during organizational change periods (specifically in higher education). Alongside his doctoral studies, Ty utilizes his background in conflict resolution, dialogue

processes, higher education, and leadership to manage and teach in an academic certificate program in the Conflict Resolution and Peace Studies program at Cuyahoga Community College in Cleveland, Ohio. At the College, he also serves in leadership roles on the Racial Justice Committee, the Advancement of Women in Equity and Inclusion Taskforce, and the Sustained Dialogue Initiative. In addition to his work at the College, Ty is the founding partner of (re)Frame Conflict, LLC, an organization that specializes in consulting and training on conflict resolution and conflict transformation processes for organizations and communities. Ty’s guiding values are intrinsically linked to the advancement of social justice (e.g., racial equity and justice, gender equality and inclusion, and criminal justice reform). He promotes these values by teaching and training, facilitating community building and engagement, and empowering folks to create positive and sustainable change in their own contexts. The APSA Community College Award committee finds Tyler Olson’s dedication to the teaching and facilitation of conflict resolution and social justice to echo the mission of Community Colleges and APSA, and unanimously award Tyler the 2022 APSA Community College Award. Ty is originally from the Pacific Northwest and relocated to Cleveland, Ohio, in 2013. From 2007 to 2009, he lived and worked in Honduras, Central America, which fortified his passion and commitment to social justice-oriented work. Ty currently lives in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, with his partner and their cat. In his limited spare time, he enjoys yoga, travel, running, and reading nonacademic literature.

APSA Distinguished Award for Civic and Community Engagement for significant civic or community engagement activity by a political scientist which merges knowledge and practice and has an impact outside of the profession or the academy

Recipients: Melissa Michelson, Menlo College, and Nykidra Robinson, Black Girls Vote

Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Elizabeth C. Matto, Rutgers University, New Brunswick; Dr. Leah A. Murray, Weber State University; Dr. Malliga Och, Idaho State University; Dr. Gisela Sin, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Award Citation: The APSA Distinguished Award for Civic and Community Engagement honors significant civic or community engagement activity by a political scientist, alone or in collaboration with others, which explicitly merges knowledge and practice and goes beyond research to have an impact outside of the profession or the academy. This year’s selection committee reviewed a strong pool of applications from a variety of scholars engaged in a range of civic projects. After careful consideration, the committee was pleased to award the 2022 APSA Distinguished Award for Civic and Community Engagement to Melissa Michelson and Nykidra Robinson for their project “Party at the Mailbox.”

“Party at the Mailbox” was an innovative and nonpartisan voter education campaign piloted in June 2020 and designed to support voters in exercising their political power during a public health emergency and at a moment of electoral uncertainty. Created by Black Girls Vote founder Nykidra Robinson, the electoral mobilization campaign centers around equipping community-based celebrations that not only support voter participation through educational outreach but foster a sense of enthusiasm and political efficacy at the local level. The reach and effectiveness of “Party at the Mailbox” was enhanced by a partnership with Dr. Melissa Michelson from Menlo College whose randomized controlled trials provided evidence-based guidance on how to make “Party at the Mailbox’s” pilot and subsequent iterations effective.

“Party at the Mailbox” not only meets the criteria of the APSA Distinguished Award for Civic and Community Engagement, but it truly captures its spirit. At its core, this award recognizes projects that benefit civic and community engagement and enhance the democratic process and outcomes. “Party at the Mailbox” roots voter mobilization in local communities by offering participating local organizations the materials and support they need to help voters complete and submit vote-by-mail ballots and celebrate their communities and political participation. The goal is to build large, robust get-out the-vote efforts that are owned by local community organizations and intentionally guided by local experts. Of equal importance is that the recognized civic engagement efforts reflect an appreciation of relevant scholarship and the use of evidence-based practices. The collaboration with Dr. Melissa Michelson that entailed randomized controlled trials and the collection of data via a survey, interviews with voters and partner organization leaders, and Zoom focus groups in each participating city perfectly exemplifies the merging of scholarship with practice that this award recognizes.

“Party at the Mailbox’s” collaborative effort paid off with results of the randomized controlled trials showing an increase in participation in the Baltimore June primary of 12.4 percentage-points (from 19 percent in the control group to 31.4 percent in the treatment group) among low-propensity voters. Organizers integrated these findings into future iterations and replicated “Party at the Mailbox” for the general election in November in Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Detroit, and Philadelphia. In 2021, the project was implemented in Atlanta, Georgia for the Senate runoff and again in November for the gubernatorial election in Richmond, Virginia. Spikes in voter turnout in these locations highlight the effectiveness of “Party at the Mailbox”, document the power of community-led and ground efforts, and serve as a valuable contribution to understanding of how best to get out the vote of Black Americans in particular. In this way, not only does “Party at the Mailbox” exemplify a successful collaboration between political science and community engagement, it offers a path for moving us towards the “more perfect union” we aspire to be.

The APSA Distinguished Award for Civic and Community Engagement carries a prize of $1,000 and provides the recipient with funds to organize an activity to advance civically engaged research at the following year’s Annual Meeting. The selection committee was chaired by Elizabeth Matto from Rutgers University and composed of Malliga Och from Idaho State, Leah Murray from Weber State University and Gisela Sin from the University of Illinois.

APSA Distinguished Teaching Award for outstanding contributions to undergraduate and graduate teaching political science at two- or four-year institutions

Recipient: Dick Simpson, University of Illinois, Chicago

Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Alison Rios Millett McCartney, Towson University; Dr. Charity Butcher, Kennesaw State University; Dr. Armando Razo, Indiana University

Award Citation: Dr. Dick Simpson has had an outstanding career teaching civic engagement for more than 50 years. Merging knowledge and practice of civic engagement throughout his career, he has been on the faculty of the University of Illinois at Chicago since 1967, where he has published over 20 books on political actions and ethics, produced seven films and documentaries on politics (including an Emmy nomination) on politics, and written more than 100 journal articles, magazine articles, book chapters, and book reviews on politics and civic engagement. Dr. Simpson has won numerous awards including the Lifetime Service Award from the APSA Political Science Education Section and every major teaching award at his own university. His efforts to advance quality political science pedagogy include co-editing two important APSA books, Teaching Civic Engagement (2013) and Teaching Civic Engagement Across the Disciplines (2017) and assisting with Teaching Civic Engagement Globally (2021), all of which provide guidelines for improving civic engagement pedagogy inside and outside the classroom at all types of higher education institutions in every discipline across the country and around the world. This work includes promoting civic engagement research work about and with K-12 educators. For many years, he has led the National Student Issues Convention, a multi-institution collaboration which brings students across the country together in an inclusive format to debate and discuss urgent topics with each other and with their legislators and has served on the editorial board of the Journal of Political Science Education.

Within APSA, Dr. Simpson has led the call to elevate the role of teaching in the discipline, especially civic education. As noted by his nominators, one important of his important roles in the future of civic engagement education has been in mentoring his co-editors through the editing and writing process on all three civic engagement books. In a discipline dominated by men, Dr. Simpson reached out to young female and minority scholars seeking to gain access to the field of civic engagement scholarship and helped them to find a platform for their innovative ideas. Further, as a regular, vocal discussant at the APSA Teaching and Learning Conference for over fifteen years, he has been a leader in developing the next generation of civic engagement teacher-scholars in political science. In a field of worthy nominations, the committee selected Dr. Simpson because of his long-standing, comprehensive record of teaching beginning in his own classroom and extending throughout the discipline, throughout higher education, and into K-12 education. Professor Dick Simpson has transformed democratic education and is an exemplar of the political science teacher.

Ithiel de Sola Pool Award to honor a scholar whose research explores a broad range of fields pursued by Ithiel de Sola Pool, including political theory, political behavior, political communication, science and technology policy, and international affairs

Recipient: Paul M. Sniderman, Stanford University

Award Committee: Chair: Rune Slothuus, Aarhus University; Deserai Anderson Crow, University of Colorado Denver; Justin Grimmer, Stanford University

Award Citation: It is with great pleasure that we honor Professor Paul M. Sniderman of Stanford University with the Ithiel de Sola Pool Award. Professor Sniderman’s more than 50-year career certainly merits this award, as he has made important methodological and substantive contributions to political science. Throughout his career, Paul Sniderman has generated incredible public goods for all scholars, and his numerous important discoveries pushed the literature forward by tackling questions of central relevance not just to his own subfields, but also to the discipline as a whole. In the spirit and legacy of Ithiel de Sola Pool, Professor Sniderman has taken advantage of innovations in computer technology to make progress in the social sciences and to address fundamental questions about how democracy works and should work.

First, and perhaps most influentially, Paul Sniderman laid the groundwork for population-based survey experiments. Building on the work of others, Sniderman was among the first to realize that computer-assisted interviewing technology allowed researchers to randomize (sometimes in highly complex ways) across different experimental treatments, thereby moving experiments out of the lab and into surveys. This opened up new frontiers in survey research not only for individual researchers, but also in the infrastructure of the discipline. Paul Sniderman led the multi-investigator survey experiment initiative in the 1990s that set the stage for Time-Sharing Experiments in the Social Sciences (TESS), which has been in existence for more than two decades and has been the source of data for hundreds of papers not just in Political Science, but throughout the social sciences, including Sociology, Psychology, Economics, Public Health, and many others. None of that would have happened if not for Sniderman’s vision.

This methodological contribution alone would be enough to merit the Pool Award, but Sniderman’s work makes at least three major substantive advances in debates that are central to core questions in political science. First, Sniderman has made foundational contributions to the study of how, and how much, citizens reason about politics and what consequences that has for democracy. The first few decades of survey research showed that voters knew little about most political topics. This lack of knowledge threatens democratic accountability: if voters are ignorant, how can they hold politicians accountable? Sniderman’s work in the 1980s and 1990s, exemplified by the edited volume Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology (Cambridge University Press, 1991), co-edited with Brody and Tetlock, explored this central question. It is worth noting here too that Sniderman co-edited the volume on Political Persuasion (University of Michigan Press, 1996) which helped define and stimulate that subfield. More recently, Sniderman has advanced a theory of how political institutions, not least the party system, help citizens make political judgments. This theory continues his line of research into how citizens reason about politics, perhaps best captured by his recent book The Democratic Faith (Yale University Press, 2017).

Second, Paul has made fundamental contributions to the literature on political prejudice and intolerance in the United States. His work on racial prejudice, and in particular the role of racial resentment, changed how the discipline thinks about this crucial topic. When scholars such as Kinder and Sears introduced the concept of racial resentment, it was Sniderman and his co-authors who drew attention to the fact that these items conflated racial prejudice with principled conservatism. The ensuing debate changed the way scholars use and interpret these measures in ways that carry forward to today. Regardless of where one stands on this debate, there is no doubt that Sniderman’s work moved the discipline forward by paying careful attention to measurement issues that are fundamental to understand the behavior of ordinary citizens.

Third, Sniderman’s work on immigration and inclusion, largely in Europe, adds yet another dimension to his scholarly contributions. Reaching across several western European nations, Sniderman’s work investigates the question of immigrant integration, and how liberal democracies have managed, and still struggles with, this transition. While each of these studies draws our attention to important country-specific factors, perhaps the strongest of these is his work on the Netherlands, When Ways of Life Collide (Princeton University Press, 2007). In that book with Hagendoorn, Sniderman highlights that much of the tension around efforts to bring immigrants, in particular Muslim immigrants, into Dutch society is not about economic competition, but rather about perceived cultural threat, and a sense that immigrants pose a threat to the Dutch way of life. Such work—and the efforts to promote integration of minority Muslim populations—remains extremely relevant today, as immigration continues to be one of the flashpoints of contemporary European—and American—politics.

In the end, Professor Paul M. Sniderman merits the Ithiel de Sola Pool Award not for any one book, article, or idea, but rather because for more than half a century, Sniderman’s work continues to define excellent scholarship that pushes the boundaries of knowledge forward on questions that are central to our discipline and to understand politics and society.

John Gaus Award for a career of exemplary scholarship in the joint tradition of political science and public administration

Recipient: Frances Berry, Florida State University

Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Susan Marie Miller, Arizona State University; Dr. Anna A. Amirkhanyan, American University; Asmus Leth Olsen, University of Copenhagen

Award Citation: The John Gaus Award honors a “lifetime of exemplary scholarship in the joint tradition of political science and public administration.” It is the privilege of the 2022 John Gaus Award Committee to recognize Professor Frances Stokes Berry, the Reubin O’D. Askew Eminent Scholar and Frank Sherwood Professor of Public Administration in the Askew School of Public Administration and Policy at Florida State University, as the recipient of this well-deserved honor.

Professor Berry’s extensive work on policy innovation and diffusion, program evaluation, and strategic and performance management has profoundly influenced scholarship in political science and public administration. Her seminal American Political Science Review article, “State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An Event History Analysis,” set the research agenda for the next generation of scholars interested in policy innovation and change. As one metric of impact, this piece alone has been cited nearly 2,400 times according to Google scholar. A common theme that emerges throughout her research is the value gained by incorporating work from a variety of research communities. As noted by her nominators, Professor Berry’s “widely cited work on policy implementation, state policy-making and policy diffusion sits firmly at the nexus of public administration and political science.”

In recognition of her innovative and insightful work, Professor Berry has received a number of awards, including the George Frederickson Award (2021) for “career contributions to the field of public management” from the Public Management Research Association and the NASPAA/ASPA Distinguished Researcher Award (2014) that recognizes “an individual whose published work has had a substantial impact on the thought and understanding of public administration.” She is a fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration, inducted in 2006, and served as president of the Public Management Research Association and the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration.

As a result of her dedication to training and mentoring doctoral students, Professor Berry’s outstanding contributions to scholarship have been amplified by her impressive network of doctoral students. She has served as doctoral committee chair or co-chair for more than 30 students and as a committee member for more than 75 students.

As the letter from her nominators states, “Perhaps more than any other Public Administration scholar alive today, Dr. Berry’s long and distinguished career embodies the spirit of the Gaus award.”

Frank J. Goodnow Award for service to the community of political science by teachers, researchers, and public servants who work in the many fields of politics

Recipient: Susan Haire, University of Georgia

Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Caroline A. Hartzell, Gettysburg College; Dr. Kerstin Hamann, University of Central Florida; Brian Lai, University of Iowa

Award Citation: Professor Susan Haire’s longstanding commitment to service in the profession, impressive for both its breadth and depth, stood out to the awards committee. Her record of service demonstrates a career-long dedication to improving the profession through mentorship, teaching, and service. Prominent among these contributions has been Professor Haire’s advocacy on behalf of students and colleagues whose voices might otherwise remain unheard, as well as her support of numerous junior scholars. Professor Haire’s service and mentorship contributions began when she was an early career scholar, making her dedication to a career of service even more notable.

An exemplar of service to the profession of political science, Professor Haire is President-Elect of the Southern Political Science Association, where she has served as both Program Chair and Section Chair for its annual conferences and been a member of the Executive Council since 2015. Professor Haire also served as Program Director for the National Science Foundation’s Law and Social Science Program from 2007 to 2009. In her current position at the University of Georgia, she has served for ten years as Director of the interdisciplinary Criminal Justice Studies Program, will become the first female Head of the Department of Political Science in the Fall of 2023, and is a 2022-2023 Women’s Leadership Fellow.

Professor Haire has demonstrated a wide-ranging commitment to the American Political Science Association, serving the organization in a variety of capacities. She has long been a leader in the APSA Law & Courts Section (chairing the Section’s Nominating Committee, Best Conference Paper Award Committee, Lifetime Achievement Award Committee, and C. Herman Pritchett Book Award Committee, and serving on many other committees).

A dedicated teacher and mentor, Professor Haire earned the 2016 “Teaching and Mentoring Award” from the APSA Law & Courts Section. She has been a champion of diversity, equity, and inclusion, a commitment reflected in her recent scholarship on how the embodied diversity of federal judges affects judicial decision making. An advocate for inclusiveness in the academy, Professor Haire has served on several university and college committees at the University of Georgia to develop and implement family-friendly policies. She also used her time as Program Director at NSF to advance important conversations on diversity in the discipline. For these reasons and more, we are pleased to confer the 2022 Frank J. Goodnow Award on Professor Susan Haire, University of Georgia.

Hubert H. Humphrey Award for notable public service by a political scientist

Recipient: Drew Altman, Kaiser Family Foundation

Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Amy E. Lerman, University of California, Berkeley; Michael A. Bailey, Georgetown University; Dr. Erica Chenoweth, Harvard University; Dr. Daniel Galvin, Northwestern University; Professor Deborah Stone, Brandeis University

Award Citation: The committee is pleased to award this year’s Hubert H. Humphrey Award to political scientist Drew Altman. Dr. Altman joined the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) in the late 1990s, and helped build it into one of the nation’s most trusted sources of information on health policy. In his current role as President and CEO of KFF, and founding publisher of KFF Kaiser Health News, he oversees the Foundation’s work providing independent research, communications, and journalism to improve public health and community well-being. During his tenure at the organization, KFF has played a crucial role in encouraging evidence-based approaches to public health and community well-being.

Throughout his highly distinguished career, Dr. Altman has made numerous and extraordinary contributions to public service. Dr. Altman previously served as Commissioner for the New Jersey Department of Human Services, Director of Health and Human Services at Pew Charitable Trusts, Vice President of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and served in a senior role with President Carter’s Health Care Financing Administration. Dr. Altman earned his PhD in Political Science from M.I.T. and completed his postdoctoral work at Harvard. He is a member of the National Academy of Medicine and the Council on Foreign Relations.

Carey McWilliams Award for a major journalistic contribution to our understanding of politics

Recipient: James Newton, University of California, Los Angeles

Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Natalie Jomini Stroud, The University of Texas at Austin; Dr. Tim Groeling, University of California, Los Angeles; Dr. Joshua M. Scacco, University of South Florida

Award Citation: The committee is pleased to present the 2022 Carey McWilliams Award to James Newton, a veteran journalist, editor, educator, and author. Newton is currently a continuing lecturer in Communication and Public Policy as well as senior consulting editor with UCLA Magazine at the University of California Los Angeles. His professional journalism career began with positions at The New York Times and Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Most recently, he worked for the Los Angeles Times where he served in the roles of reporter, editor, bureau chief, department head, editorial page editor, and columnist. During his career at the LA Times, Newton covered two criminal trials that shaped the trajectory of politics and culture–the civil rights trial of the LAPD officers who beat Rodney G. King and the murder trial of O.J. Simpson. His work with the LA Times also featured important coverage of local and national politics, including overseeing the editorial board’s “American Values and the Next President” series during the 2008 presidential race. Since leaving the LA Times in 2014, Newton has devoted his efforts to serving as editor-in-chief of Blueprint, a semi-annual journal, in print and online, that integrates academic research in examining the policy challenges facing California and Los Angeles. He also teaches courses on journalism and ethics as well as a writing seminar for journalism students to learn to write on deadline. The author of four books on a bipartisan set of political figures, Newton notes that it is his work on former California Governor and Chief Justice of the United States Earl Warren that “launched me on a career as a book writer.”

Newton has made many significant contributions to our understanding of politics and public policy. One of the letters recommending Newton called him a “potent and graceful practitioner” of “The Journalism of Illumination”—articles and books that take a reader deep into important subjects, regardless of whether they occurred yesterday or 75 years ago.” Another described his writing as “incisive and balanced; smart and on target” leading to him being regarded as “one of the most influential and consequential political journalists in the history of Southern California.” The committee was particularly impressed with the breadth and depth of Newton’s work, including his work covering what one recommender called “the most salient political events and policy debates in Los Angeles over the last three decades,” and extending to his four thoughtful and well-researched books.

McWilliams was known for his intellectual forthrightness and political independence, characteristics shared by Newton. One of Newton’s recommenders noted that “Jim did a spectacular job of covering the federal trial [of the Los Angeles Police Department officers who beat Rodney King] and near the conclusion, US District Judge John Davies did something I had never seen in years of covering trials and have not since. On the record, the judge praised Jim’s work in open court: ‘I want to compliment you. From the fashion in which you have reported this case, I think you have been honorable, you have been accurate, and you have reported the issues with great skill. I wish they were all that way.’” Yet another wrote that Newton “demands fair, balanced and ethical reporting.” The committee is pleased to honor James Newton with the 2022 Carey McWilliams Award.

Barbara Sinclair Lecture for achievement in promoting the understanding of the United States Congress and legislative politics

Recipient: Rodney Hero, Arizona State University

Award Committee: Co-Chair: Dr. David C. Barker, American University; Co-Chair: Megan McConaughey, American Political Science Association; Dr. Scott Adler, University of Colorado, Boulder; Dr. Ashley English, University of North Texas; Dr. Kristin Kanthak, University of Pittsburgh

Award Citation: Professor Rodney Hero is this year’s selection for the Barbara Sinclair Lecture, given to a preeminent scholar who promotes the understanding of the United States Congress and legislative politics. The selection committee noted that Professor Hero has done this in a wide variety of ways. Hero is considered one of the most esteemed scholars of racial and ethnic politics, and has devoted a good deal of his scholarship to the representation of racial groups and interests in congressional governance in ways that have served to bridge the study of citizens and the study of political institutions. His work on substantive and descriptive representation of Blacks and Latinos in Congress is nothing short of path breaking. His work also contributed immensely to our understanding of the role that inequality plays in social and welfare policy making at the federal level. These represent only a small portion of his immense research that spans other areas, including urban and state politics, political behavior, and elections.

Rodney is currently Raul Yzaguirre Chair in the School of Politics and Global Studies at Arizona State University. He previously held faculty positions as professor of political science and the Haas Chair in Diversity and Democracy at the University of California, Berkeley (2010-17); the Packey J. Dee Professor of American Democracy in the Department of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame (2000-10); at the University of Colorado at Boulder (1989-2000); and at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs (1980-87). Hero is the recipient of many best book and paper awards, including the Ralph J. Bunche Award, the Latino Politics Best Book Award, and the Woodrow Wilson book award. In 2007-08, Rodney served as President of the Midwest Political Science Association, and in 2014-15 he served as President of the American Political Science Association.

Teaching and Learning Awards

Michael Brintnall Teaching and Learning Award to support attendance at the conference

Co-recipient: Onursal Erol, University of Southern California

Co-recipient: Dale Mineshima-Lowe, Birkbeck, University of London

APSA Award for Teaching Innovation for developing a new approach to teaching

Recipient: Onursal Erol, University of Southern California

Award Committee: Chair: Dr. Peter Lindsay, Georgia State University;

Dr. Donald M. Gooch, Stephen F. Austin State University; Dr. Stephanie A Hallock, Harford Community College

Award Citation: Dr. Erol has designed an undergraduate course, “Environment and Politics in the Middle East,” that takes advantage of the unique strengths of the digital environment. The course focuses on the creation of a collectively authored e-book consisting of three parts, each designed to achieve an interrelated, but distinct teaching goal: experience with archival research, engagement with comparative political issues, and the translation of complicated ideas into something digestible for the general public.