This article examines some aspects of campaign strategies that have risen in importance in twenty-first–century US political competition that are highlighted by the events of January 6, 2021.

Several recent analyses have examined the effects of religious beliefs, belonging, and behaviors on the representation of women in American politics. Taken collectively, these studies present an interesting puzzle. Specifically, they demonstrate that religious adherents express attitudes that are less supportive of women in positions of political leadership and that at every stage of the process, from primary candidacy to general-election victory, women are less likely to run and win in districts with greater numbers of religious adherents. However, this does not appear to be the result of even the most devout voters’ unwillingness to support women candidates in general elections. This body of work, therefore, suggests that the effect of religion on the representation of women manifests at earlier stages of the process, including individual vote choice in primary elections, party and elite recruitment, and potential candidates’ strategic entry decisions.

Recent research in American politics demonstrates that despite gender-based partisan sorting, gender gaps in policy preferences persist within political parties—particularly among Republicans. Republican women report significantly more moderate views than their male counterparts across a range of policy areas. These gaps are largely attributable to gender differences in beliefs about the appropriate scope of government and attitudes toward gender-based inequality. Arguably, gender has become a more salient feature of American elections in recent years, and this heightened salience raises questions about whether these within-party gender gaps are stable over time or vary across campaign contexts. We use survey data from the 2012 and 2016 American National Election Study to evaluate whether gender gaps in policy preferences are stable across elections or if the 2016 election context affected the magnitude of gender differences in policy preferences. We find that gender gaps in policy preferences within political parties are fairly stable across the two electoral periods.

After years of gridlock on the issue, a bipartisan group of members of Congress struck a deal in 2020 to restore eligibility for inmates to access Pell Grants. Evidence indicates that college education programs in prison reduce recidivism and, consequently, state corrections expenditures, but legislators in prior decades feared that voters would resent government subsidy of college classes for criminals. To assess the contemporary politics of the issue, we analyze data from a framing experiment embedded in the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study. We find that Americans, on average, neither support nor oppose the proposal to restore inmates’ Pell Grant eligibility; however, exposure to arguments about the proposal’s benefits to inmates in particular and American society more broadly both increased subjects’ support. We further explore how this framing effect varies across political partisanship and racial resentment. We find that both frames elicited a positive response from subjects, especially among Democrats and subjects with low or moderate racial resentment.

Luskin and Bullock’s (2011) randomized experiment on live-interview respondents found no evidence that American National Election Studies and Time-Sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences respondents hide knowledge behind the “don’t know” (DK) option. We successfully replicated their finding using two online platforms, the Cooperative Congressional Election Study and Google Surveys. However, we obtained different results on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk). We attribute this difference to MTurkers’ experience with attention checks and other quality-control mechanisms, which condition them to avoid errors. This conditioning leads MTurkers to hide knowledge behind DK in ways not observed on other platforms. Researchers conducting political knowledge experiments or piloting surveys on MTurk should be aware of these differences.

By replying to Kurt Weyland’s (2020) comparative study of populism, we revisit optimistic perspectives on the health of American democracy in light of existing evidence. Relying on a set-theoretical approach, Weyland concludes that populists succeed in subverting democracy only when institutional weakness and conjunctural misfortune are observed jointly in a polity, thereby conferring on the United States immunity to democratic reversal. We challenge this conclusion on two grounds. First, we argue that the focus on institutional dynamics neglects the impact of the structural conditions in which institutions are embedded, such as inequality, racial cleavages, and changing political attitudes among the public. Second, we claim that endogeneity, coding errors, and the (mis)use of Boolean algebra raise questions about the accuracy of the analysis and its conclusions. Although we are skeptical of crisp-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis as an adequate modeling choice, we replicate the original analysis and find that the paths toward democratic backsliding and continuity are both potentially compatible with the United States.

Has the global COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted the scholarly productivity of academics? Do gender and parenting magnify its effect? To obtain insight into the changes the pandemic has wrought in the lives and careers of women and parents in academia, we surveyed scholars in political science and international studies. The survey was in the field during the period in which many academics were experiencing shelter-at-home orders and adjusting to a new reality. It captures initial reactions to changed circumstances as well as the fears and anticipated consequences of the disruptions. We find that perceptions of a negative impact are broadly shared. The open-ended responses suggest that the pandemic may widen the gender and parent productivity gaps. Although further analysis is needed to better understand the effect of the pandemic on scholarly productivity, we conclude that the pandemic exacerbates existing structural inequalities.

Many people seek to increase practitioners’ use of research evidence in decision making. Two common strategies are dissemination and interaction. Dissemination can reach a wide audience at once, yet interactive strategies can be beneficial because they entail back-and-forth conversations to clarify how research evidence applies in a particular context. To date, however, we lack much direct evidence of the impact of interaction beyond dissemination. Partnering with an international sustainability-oriented NGO, I conducted a field experiment to test the impact of an interactive strategy (i.e., a single conversation) on practitioners’ use of research evidence in a pending decision. I find that the conversation had a substantial impact on research use relative to only receiving disseminated materials, which likely was due to increased self-efficacy. I also provide practical guidance on how researchers can apply this finding close to home by strengthening linkages with local decision makers.

There is growing consensus in political science methods literature that positionality is consequential for interview research in variable and important ways. At the same time, however, much of this literature reinforces a categorical distinction between elite and non-elite contexts and participants, and it assumes “elite” to be a static category that presents researchers with discrete challenges that require uniform strategies to address. This article draws on my experience in conducting interviews with more than 100 “elites” to address this divide in two ways. First, I show that the category of elite is not as monolithic as often asserted. Rather, speaking with educated and authoritative individuals is fraught with variable challenges related to positionality. Second, to address these challenges, I argue that researchers must engage in active reflexivity, interrogating the relational effects of positionality across all aspects of research. I focus particular attention on issues of access and interactions within interviews.

This article explores the ethical difficulties that arise because of the interaction between fieldwork practitioners and their sites, in terms of the positionality of the researcher. What are the ethics of blending in or of standing out? This question stems from my experience of 12 months of fieldwork in South Africa in two distinct locales and among two different populations, one in which I could “pass” and another in which I was marked as various degrees of “outsider.” Drawing on this fieldwork, as well as an overview of the literature in political science on positionality, I argue that our discipline—because of the way it shapes interactions and research outcomes—must take positionality seriously in ethical training and practice.

Based on an original dataset of all articles on the Middle East in major political science journals during the past two decades, we assess trends in publishing on the region to explore whether it remains underrepresented in political science and how the field has evolved. We focus on the evolution of the total share of Middle East and North Africa (MENA)-focused articles, research topics, methods employed, and patterns of authorship by gender. The proportion of MENA-focused articles has increased, particularly after the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings, but remains strikingly low. With respect to topics and methods, research on the Middle East is increasingly integrated in mainstream political science, with articles addressing core disciplinary debates and relying increasingly more on statistical and experimental methods. Yet, these shifts may come at the expense of predominantly qualitative research, and primary topics may reflect the priorities of Western researchers while underplaying the major concerns of Middle Eastern publics.

This article investigates the impact that the decision to switch an academic conference to an online event had on its carbon footprint. Using the example of the biggest European Political Science conference, the European Consortium for Political Research General Conference, it comprehensively estimates the amount of greenhouse gases produced by the virtual event and by the hypothetical case, if the event had taken place physically, including emissions from electricity usage, travel, heating, and catering. The carbon footprint of the virtual conference turned out to be between at least 97 and 200 times smaller than it would have been if the meeting had taken place in person. Hybrid conferences, particularly if those participants from far away join the event online, combined with the promotion of land-bound travel for those attending in person—even if this means longer travel times than flying—could be a feasible compromise to reduce emissions by almost 90%.

Computational reproducibility, or the ability to reproduce analytic results of a scientific study on the basis of publicly available code and data, is a shared goal of many researchers, journals, and scientific communities. Researchers in many disciplines including political science have made strides toward realizing that goal. A new challenge, however, has arisen. Code too often becomes obsolete within only a few years. We document this problem with a random sample of studies posted to the Institution for Social and Policy Studies (ISPS) Data Archive; we encountered nontrivial errors in seven of 20 studies. In line with similar proposals for the long-term maintenance of data and commercial software, we propose that researchers dedicated to computational reproducibility should have a plan in place for “active maintenance” of their analysis code. We offer concrete suggestions for how data archives, journals, and research communities could encourage and reward the active maintenance of scientific code and data.

Although an object of increasing interest, researching illegal activities generates a range of methodological challenges for political scientists. Rather than an exhaustive discussion, this article provides a simple framework that structures these challenges. It highlights that illegality is an insufficient guide to method development and needs to be supplemented by an analysis of three dimensions in addition to legality: enforcement, normalization, and ethics. The article explains that beyond providing insight into the feasibility and challenges of different methodologies, examining these dimensions also directly points researchers to key political science questions about illegal activities.